landlord

[channy54321]

hi im due to move out in the next couple of weeks,but about 2yr ago he put in a brand new fitted kitchen and my 18 yr old son put a hot pan on the worktop and there is 3 small blister marks, landlord has seen this and says it is going to need a full new worktop and will cost 350 pound so my bond has completely gone for starters,and im going too have yo pay about 200 quid my boyfriend says he should be covered for things like that ,building insurance,,,should I pay it? my landlady is a friend iv known for life and think it's her husband whos the actual driving force

Yes, you should pay it. If all tenants thought they were not responsible for any damage they caused either deliberately or accidentally then no landlord would be able to get affordable insurance at all, as they'd be having to claim at the end of every tenancy and their premiums would be through the roof.

If you don't want to see rents rise and you want to be able to continue to rent if you receive HB then don't make it harder for landlords, and accept that you have some personal responsibility.

that's what I thought Thankyou

It depends what it says in your lease/tenancy agreement, assuming you have one. The tenant is normally responsible for any damage other than wear and tear from everyday use. You should probably pay.

Your 18 year old should pay for it.

Is your deposit protected in the deposit protection scheme? If not, it should be and your landlord is acting illegally if it's not - doesn't matter if he's a friend or not. This ensures that only reasonable costs are deducted from your deposit and all negotiations are done through the scheme and not directly. In saying that, you should obviously pay for the damage, but only to a reasonable level. If your deposit isn't in the scheme your landlord could be forced to pay you 3x your deposit so it's worth looking at.

Yes of course you need to pay for any damage you cause.

check your tenants insurance, it should have cover for this kind of thing.

landlords have to accept wear and tear, but this kind of carelessness is not wear and tear. Although unless the worktop is goldplated I struggle to see how it can cost so much.

TheRealFellatio just about sums it up really.

Surely rent factors in wear & tear & no kitchen units will look like new for ever? I can't see why you need pay the whole cost.

I would agree to pay if he provides proof that is how much it will cost, it sounds far too high.

Otherwise could you find the same worktop and fit, or pay to fit, a replacement, and that way get to keep your deposit?

I agree you should pay for damage, but that cost is more than the value of all of my kitchen worktops, never mind one section, and I would want to make sure I was only paying to replace what had been damaged and not anything else.

Not looking brand new and having very obvious visible damage are two very different things. What you are saying might be fine if it were a 15 year old kitchen due for replacement anyway, but what if it were only three years old?

A reasonalble calculation would be based on the life expectancy of the damaged item, minus an allowance for the use of the item to date. e.g. cost of worktop is £350 life expctancy of item is 10 years - you should pay £280 (because the landlord has already has 2 years use of the worktop). The life expectancy of the kitchen would obviously depend on the quality of the fitchen kitchen.

Have a look at the tenancy deposit scheme website, there are a lot of examples of what is and isn't fair.

Accidental damage may not be covered by ll insurance and is not wear and tear.

Did you take contents insurance? That may cover for accidental damage on the worktop.