Landlord deducting from deposit due to Blu-tac spots!

XenaLady

We have recently moved out from an apartment that was rented through agency and the last inspection was today.
Landlord had said that the place was perfectly clean but they will deduct the deposit for repainting the whole place as the walls had dark spots from blue tack and "dirt".
We had been living there for 2 years, we didnt make any marks to the walls but as the previous paint was water soluble it was impossible to wipe off anything from the walls :mad: We didnt make any damage to anything, even the apartment was cleaner now than what it was when we moved in.

Can the landlord really deduct from painting the walls???
He didnt give any certain amount, just said that "approximate" as he still has the old paint in his storage!

Zamboni

XenaLady wrote: »

We have recently moved out from an apartment that was rented through agency and the last inspection was today.
Landlord had said that the place was perfectly clean but they will deduct the deposit for repainting the whole place as the walls had dark spots from blue tack and "dirt".
We had been living there for 2 years, we didnt make any marks to the walls but as the previous paint was water soluble it was impossible to wipe off anything from the walls :mad: We didnt make any damage to anything, even the apartment was cleaner now than what it was when we moved in.

Can the landlord really deduct from painting the walls???
He didnt give any certain amount, just said that "approximate" as he still has the old paint in his storage!

It sounds like normal wear and tear. In which case, no, he cannot deduct.

djimi

The landlord can only deduct for work that he has done to the place; if repairs are carried out by himself using materials that he already has then he cannot deduct this from the deposit. Basically he must be able to provide you with reciepts for all the amounts deducted from the deposit.

odds_on

Zamboni wrote: »

It sounds like normal wear and tear. In which case, no, he cannot deduct.

IMHO, blue tack marks are not normal wear and tear.
OP, I'm sure that your lease probably had a clause prohibiting the sticking things on the walls etc., such as "Not to glue, stick or otherwise fix anything whatsoever to the exterior or interior walls, without the Landlord's written consent".
If your lease contains a clause similar to the above then IMHO, you are liable, if not you are not liable.

However, were the walls newly painted when you move in?
Then the landlord cannot charge you for 100% of the work and supplies, if he does, he is improving the property which is not allowed. Furthermore, there must also be some normal wear and tear on the walls, especially after two years (with children? then the W & T will be greater) apart from the "damage" of the blue tack, for which the landlord is liable. I would suggest that you are liable for possibly something in the region of 30% of the costs.

Was there an entry inventory completed stating the condition of the walls, which you signed? If the answer is no, then the landlord cannot claim anything as he has no proof that you caused the damage unless the walls were newly painted and he has dated receipts to prove it.

athtrasna

Blu tak marks are a nightmare to paint over, you have to seal the area first because of the oil left behind from the blu tak. Not sure I'd seek to charge tenants if the rest of the place was clean though.

XenaLady

the rent agreement says we were not alloed to put any nails on the walls so we used blue tack. No damage was done anywhere but I agree the walls dont look good especially when the paint was water soluble and when I was trying ever to wipe anything off with water, the paint came off and left a dirty looking spot.
Previous tenant had had blue tacks as well and they were just painted over, I could see the lumps on the walls. It was painted before we moved in cos the previous tenant had caused a major water incident and the whole place is in mold. Also the mold spots in bedrooms were just painted over and the mold was crowing out so i wipes it off, causing again the loss of paint.
Landlord is anyway going to get the money out from his tax reliefs, why should I offer him a double money?

XenaLady

Oh, and no, there is no W&T on the walls other than that, children are not small anymore and we were always very cautious with everything.

pawnacide

If it actually came to a PTRB hearing the landlord would most likely lose and it would be considered wear and tear. If anyone can point to a case where painting was not considered 'normal wear and tear' I'd like to see it. As to getting your deposit back it depends on how far you're willing to take it.

Victor

After two years, some wear and tear can be expected, so charging you for full painting isn't acceptable.

Using Blu-tac does damage walls.

Don't let him charge the full price for painting if he is only applying one coat.

XenaLady wrote: »

Landlord is anyway going to get the money out from his tax reliefs, why should I offer him a double money?

No, If he spends €1,000 on painting, the most he can get back is €520.