Repairs using tenancy deposit

jellyfius · 09-04-2015 1:37pm #1

Hi all,

I'm just about to move out of a flat I was renting and, during the tenancy, there was damage done to the intercom system in the flat. Basically, when I was dusting, a transparent plastic cover for the CCTV monitor fell away from the console and little plastic pins were broken at the bottom of the cover meaning it can no longer be permanently secured to the unit. I'm not entirely convinced that I personally broke it - I think a previous tenant damaged it and pushed it back into place with me merely knocking it off.

In any case, the model of intercom is no longer available. The landlord has quoted a price of 300 euro for the replacement and is asking me to contribute to that, which he will deduct from the deposit I paid at the start of the tenancy.

Part of me is thinking I should go halves for goodwill, but at the same stage, 150 euro for a piece of plastic is a bit much. It could be glued back in place for 5 euro. Any suggestions what I should do?

Michael D Not Higgins · 09-04-2015 1:55pm

€300 is extortionate. Where did this number come from if the model is not available anymore?

Edit: if it's €300 for a whole new model of intercom, then that's well out of the bounds of what he can claim from you.

hfallada · 09-04-2015 2:07pm

If its not broken, than ask for it to be glued back. We wouldnt replace a whole mashing machine, if the glass door shattered?

awec · 09-04-2015 3:29pm

Is the plastic bit that broke off just a superficial part? If it's what I have pictured in my head I'd guess the intercom works 100% fine without it?

jellyfius · 09-04-2015 4:25pm

Yep, it's a superficial part. The intercom works fine ... it's a little frosted piece of plastic that sits over the glass of the TV part.

MouseTail · 09-04-2015 6:17pm

If its glued back you can't open it again to fix. Realistically most people I imagine would have glued it back or done some sort of superficial fix and the LL would be none the wiser. However he knows now.

Have you tried to source the part yourself on eBay?

ted1 · 09-04-2015 7:16pm

You should have fixed it without the landlord getting involved.

MadDog76 · 09-04-2015 8:26pm

ted1 wrote: »

You should have fixed it without the landlord getting involved.

That's great advice ........... now where did I leave my time-machine!?! :P

jellyfius · 10-04-2015 8:20am

Yes, I should have glued it before the landlord noticed ...

Unfortunately, since I have yet to invent a flux capacitor and lack the skills to install it in a DeLorean ...

Outkast_IRE · 10-04-2015 8:23am

can you tell us the brand and model of the intercom ? someone may be able to point you in the right direction for a part etc.

Baby01032012 · 10-04-2015 10:02am

jellyfius wrote: »

Yes, I should have glued it before the landlord noticed ...

Unfortunately, since I have yet to invent a flux capacitor and lack the skills to install it in a DeLorean ...

Don't get smart with another poster.

If you broke it you should have fixed it or at least informed landlord that it was broken and the outcome may have been a little more in your favour.

You decided not to tell in hope landlord wouldn't notice. Now he has on inspection and you have to leave the place in the state it was in when you took the apartment. Ask for copy of the quote, get another quote if you feel too high. However you need to pay up.

The_Morrigan · 10-04-2015 10:03am

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Don't get smart with another poster.

Don't backseat mod!

jellyfius · 14-04-2015 9:05am

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Don't get smart with another poster.

Why not? Telling me to go back in time and glue it isn't a particularly helpful suggestion ...

Baby01032012 wrote: »

If you broke it you should have fixed it or at least informed landlord that it was broken and the outcome may have been a little more in your favour.

I did. And I searched for the part on ebay and other sites. I contacted the company that manufactures the intercom to see if they sold replacement parts. I also contacted local companies who supply intercoms to see if they had replacement parts.

Baby01032012 wrote: »

You decided not to tell in hope landlord wouldn't notice.

Nope. He's only now decided that it's annoying him and wants it fixed.

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Now he has on inspection and you have to leave the place in the state it was in when you took the apartment.

Yes, but allowances have to be made for general wear and tear. If the door of the washing machine fell off, would I have to pay for that? Only if I was jumping up and down on the thing. Not if it was general wear and tear.

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Ask for copy of the quote, get another quote if you feel too high. However you need to pay up.

Yes I agree. I have to pay something towards it. And a quote is a good idea. But half the total cost of a new intercom?

whippet · 14-04-2015 9:44am

jellyfius wrote: »

Yes, but allowances have to be made for general wear and tear. If the door of the washing machine fell off, would I have to pay for that? Only if I was jumping up and down on the thing. Not if it was general wear and tear.

it's not wear and tear .. by your own admission you broke it when you were dusting.

The fact remains, the landlord needs to replace it, if parts can't be sourced a new one needs to be installed. You might not like the idea of paying up for a new one, but unfortunately that is what is probably needed.

Take a step back from the situation, the Landlord will be renting it out to another tenant who will - like you; expect the place to be in a good condition and something like an intercom with a botch job glued together isn't very appealing.

Ensure the landlord gives you a copy of the receipt / invoice for the replacement intercom - if you really feel you could have sourced a replacement (suitable replacement) cheaper by all means take it to the PRTB and let them decide.

foggy_lad · 14-04-2015 10:07am

Covered under general wear and tear! The fact that the intercom is now obsolete and no longer available makes me think it is there a number of years and may have been damaged for several years, the LL might even be aware all that time and this is just one of his little tricks to keep as much of tenants deposits as he can?

Michael D Not Higgins · 14-04-2015 10:09am

whippet wrote: »

it's not wear and tear .. by your own admission you broke it when you were dusting.

The fact remains, the landlord needs to replace it, if parts can't be sourced a new one needs to be installed. You might not like the idea of paying up for a new one, but unfortunately that is what is probably needed.

Take a step back from the situation, the Landlord will be renting it out to another tenant who will - like you; expect the place to be in a good condition and something like an intercom with a botch job glued together isn't very appealing.

Ensure the landlord gives you a copy of the receipt / invoice for the replacement intercom - if you really feel you could have sourced a replacement (suitable replacement) cheaper by all means take it to the PRTB and let them decide.

But expenditures like this can be written off against tax, not to mention depreciation. If you have an old sofa that gets damaged, you cannot get the tenant to pay for a brand new one.

SpaceTime · 14-04-2015 10:09am

Demand receipts.

foggy_lad · 14-04-2015 10:14am

SpaceTime wrote: »

Demand receipts.

Hand the LL a roll of sticky-tape or other suitable adhesive that is not permanent.(allows for maintenance in future).

spaceHopper · 14-04-2015 10:32am

I'd tell the LL that you have no idea if it was broken before you moved in, it can easily be fixed with a dab of super glue, it's so old he must have written it off against tax by now and if he does not return your full deposit you'll make a complaint to the PTRB. Also search for his name on Google and check if he's been before them before.

whippet · 14-04-2015 11:28am

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But expenditures like this can be written off against tax,

so by that train of thought tenants should never pay for any damages as the landlord can just write it off against tax

The tenant has damaged something that needs to be repaired, as long as the landlord can produce a receipt for the replacement / work done and it is reasonable the tenant will have to cover the cost.

This nonsense that it can just be written off against tax is total lunacy ... when the tenancy is in place the tenant is responsible for the property and all fixtures and fittings.

If the irish mentality of tenants is that damages should just be written off against tax they have no right to moan about high levels of rent.

whippet · 14-04-2015 11:31am

spaceHopper wrote: »

I'd tell the LL that you have no idea if it was broken before you moved in, it can easily be fixed with a dab of super glue, it's so old he must have written it off against tax by now and if he does not return your full deposit you'll make a complaint to the PTRB. Also search for his name on Google and check if he's been before them before.

so you think the tenant should lie to the landlord and then go looking for dirt on him with the PRTB .. just because the tenant is being asked to pay for damages they have already admitted they made.

Thanks be to god I am selling my rental property as soon as my tenants have ended the notice period. The amount of rubbish I have had to listen to over the last number of years .. even one tenant trying to tell me that a broken toilet bowl was wear and tear.

hfallada · 14-04-2015 11:34am

An intercom has a limited life like most things in a house/apartment. If OP broke a knob off a 10 year cooker, that clearly had plastic fatigue due to wear and tear. Why he be expected to pay for a new hob. No, as the item was old and going to break eventually.

OP I would tell the Landlord you will pay a fraction at most

Michael D Not Higgins · 14-04-2015 11:35am

whippet wrote: »

so by that train of thought tenants should never pay for any damages as the landlord can just write it off against tax

That wasn't my train of thought though. You strawmanned the argument.

whippet · 14-04-2015 11:45am

hfallada wrote: »

An intercom has a limited life like most things in a house/apartment. If OP broke a knob off a 10 year cooker, that clearly had plastic fatigue due to wear and tear. Why he be expected to pay for a new hob. No, as the item was old and going to break eventually.

OP I would tell the Landlord you will pay a fraction at most

I have a 13 year old cooker and none of the knobs fell off .. but if I damaged one it probably would fall off.

You can in no way state that it 'clearly had plastic fatigue' .. I have seen original intercom systems in place in apartments that would be over 20 years old.

You break it .. you pay for it .. end of story

whippet · 14-04-2015 11:46am

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That wasn't my train of thought though. You strawmanned the argument.

no i didn't. You clearly stated that the landlord should swallow the cost as he can write it off against tax.

You are just being selective in your own ideas about what level of damage should be covered by the landlord.

The landlord should never have to pay for any damage done by a tenant.

foggy_lad · 14-04-2015 11:48am

whippet wrote: »

so by that train of thought tenants should never pay for any damages as the landlord can just write it off against tax

The tenant has damaged something that needs to be repaired, as long as the landlord can produce a receipt for the replacement / work done and it is reasonable the tenant will have to cover the cost.

This nonsense that it can just be written off against tax is total lunacy ... when the tenancy is in place the tenant is responsible for the property and all fixtures and fittings.

If the irish mentality of tenants is that damages should just be written off against tax they have no right to moan about high levels of rent.

Stuff breaks while it is being cleaned etc, If the intercom was left sitting on the wall unused and untouched it would never break but what is the point of having it there? All of these items are designed to have a lifespan after which they are more prone to damage from fatigue and from the changes that happen to the materials over time!

Michael D Not Higgins · 14-04-2015 12:21pm

whippet wrote: »

no i didn't. You clearly stated that the landlord should swallow the cost as he can write it off against tax.

You are just being selective in your own ideas about what level of damage should be covered by the landlord.

The landlord should never have to pay for any damage done by a tenant.

The system being obsolete means it has long since been claimed against the tax due. However I specifically mentioned old furnishings as the example for wear and tear and depreciation. The Act defines wear and tear:

(f) not do any act that would cause a deterioration in the condition the dwelling was in at the commencement of the tenancy, but there shall be disregarded, in determining whether this obligation has been complied with at a particular time, any deterioration in that condition owing to normal wear and tear, that is to say wear and tear that is normal having regard to—
(i) the time that has elapsed from the commencement of the tenancy,
(ii) the extent of occupation of the dwelling the landlord must have reasonably foreseen would occur since that commencement, and
(iii) any other relevant matters

(g) if paragraph (f) is not complied with, take such steps as the landlord may reasonably require to be taken for the purpose of restoring the dwelling to the condition mentioned in paragraph (f) or to defray any costs incurred by the landlord in his or her taking such steps as are reasonable for that purpose

Part (f)(iii) is the important bit here.
The fact the system is obsolete and a replacement part is so expensive is relevant.
The fact that the system has depreciated in value is relevant.
The fact that it has been entirely claimed for against tax due is relevant (sure I'm speculating here but the other points are valid).

Part (g) also states it has to be reasonable if it is above normal wear and tear. To replace an obsolete part for such a high cost is not reasonable.

On both counts, whether it's wear and tear or not, it is unreasonable.

whippet · 14-04-2015 12:43pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The system being obsolete means it has long since been claimed against the tax due. However I specifically mentioned old furnishings as the example for wear and tear and depreciation. The Act defines wear and tear:

Part (f)(iii) is the important bit here.
The fact the system is obsolete and a replacement part is so expensive is relevant.
The fact that the system has depreciated in value is relevant.
The fact that it has been entirely claimed for against tax due is relevant (sure I'm speculating here but the other points are valid).

Part (g) also states it has to be reasonable if it is above normal wear and tear. To replace an obsolete part for such a high cost is not reasonable.

On both counts, whether it's wear and tear or not, it is unreasonable.

you are making an assumption that depreciation on this item was claimed against tax; unless the landlord had it installed previously and has a separate invoice showing it's value (highly unlikely) it probably wasn't depreciated .

anyway .. your whole argument is based upon the words 'other relevant matters' .. vague and can be construed in anyway depending on your point of view. Intercom systems can last decades ..we have no idea how old this one it (parts for some electrical items can be unavailable within a couple of years) .. potentially this intercom could have had a working useful life for another 10 years but as it is now physically broken and can't be repaired with a proper part it must be replaced.

As the part was broken by the tenant it is my view that this cost should be borne out by the tenant.

As I said earlier the tenant should pay, get a receipt and if they still feel that the LL has taken the mickey with the cost .. that is what the PTRB is for.

Michael D Not Higgins · 14-04-2015 12:51pm

whippet wrote: »

you are making an assumption that depreciation on this item was claimed against tax; unless the landlord had it installed previously and has a separate invoice showing it's value (highly unlikely) it probably wasn't depreciated .

anyway .. your whole argument is based upon the words 'other relevant matters' .. vague and can be construed in anyway depending on your point of view. Intercom systems can last decades ..we have no idea how old this one it (parts for some electrical items can be unavailable within a couple of years) .. potentially this intercom could have had a working useful life for another 10 years but as it is now physically broken and can't be repaired with a proper part it must be replaced.

As the part was broken by the tenant it is my view that this cost should be borne out by the tenant.

As I said earlier the tenant should pay, get a receipt and if they still feel that the LL has taken the mickey with the cost .. that is what the PTRB is for.

It's a plastic cover. It doesn't affect the function.

Nonetheless, the wear and tear is dependent on the age of the item. Plastic gets brittle over time and will be more likely to break as it ages.

Also saying pay and then go to the PRTB just clogs the PRTB with unnecessary disputes. It could also be seen as a tacit agreement to pay for the damage by the tenant and hinder their case.

Triangla · 14-04-2015 12:57pm

whippet wrote: »

I have a 13 year old cooker and none of the knobs fell off .. but if I damaged one it probably would fall off.

You can in no way state that it 'clearly had plastic fatigue' .. I have seen original intercom systems in place in apartments that would be over 20 years old.

You break it .. you pay for it .. end of story

If someone was using your kitchen and your cooker if they turned a knob, as normal and it came off in their hand you'd hardly exoect them to contribute to replacing your cooker would you?

After 13 years of use, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back is hardly to blame for 13 years of erosion.

It's the landlord being pretty petty. Wear and tear is exactly that, wear and tear.

MadDog76 · 14-04-2015 6:56pm

jellyfius wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm just about to move out of a flat I was renting and, during the tenancy, there was damage done to the intercom system in the flat. Basically, when I was dusting, a transparent plastic cover for the CCTV monitor fell away from the console and little plastic pins were broken at the bottom of the cover meaning it can no longer be permanently secured to the unit. I'm not entirely convinced that I personally broke it - I think a previous tenant damaged it and pushed it back into place with me merely knocking it off.

In any case, the model of intercom is no longer available. The landlord has quoted a price of 300 euro for the replacement and is asking me to contribute to that, which he will deduct from the deposit I paid at the start of the tenancy.

Part of me is thinking I should go halves for goodwill, but at the same stage, 150 euro for a piece of plastic is a bit much. It could be glued back in place for 5 euro. Any suggestions what I should do?

whippet wrote: »

it's not wear and tear ..by your own admission you broke it when you were dusting.

The fact remains, the landlord needs to replace it, if parts can't be sourced a new one needs to be installed. You might not like the idea of paying up for a new one, but unfortunately that is what is probably needed.

Take a step back from the situation, the Landlord will be renting it out to another tenant who will - like you; expect the place to be in a good condition and something like an intercom with a botch job glued together isn't very appealing.

Ensure the landlord gives you a copy of the receipt / invoice for the replacement intercom - if you really feel you could have sourced a replacement (suitable replacement) cheaper by all means take it to the PRTB and let them decide.

By the Op's own admission he is not "entirely convinced" he actually broke it ......... actually

It's because of LL's like the Op's that a lot of Tenants try cover up damages instead of being honest with their LL's .......... fair LL's equal honest Tenant's.
This LL is not being fair .........

whippet · 15-04-2015 7:43am

MadDog76 wrote: »

Tenants try cover up damages instead of being honest with their LL's .......... fair LL's equal honest Tenant's.
This LL is not being fair .........

I am a landlord and have been as fair as I can possibly be ... I have had some absolutely perfect tenants and my share of irresponsible ones. So saying that fair LLs = honest tenants is a total myth. I have been shafted by tenants whom I treated in a proper professional manner

It is stated in my lease that any and all damages must be reported as soon as possible .. the reason for this is I don't want the tenant hiding anything and then hoping I don't notice until the place it let again or i have refunded the deposit.

I treat all lies, attempts to cover up etc as a potential breech of the lease. I have had tenants break some stuff, they have informed me and I have just replaced and said nothing .. funnily enough these tend to be the tenants who get their deposit back almost instantly as when I do the walk through after the lease is up I don't get any surprises.

Its just like the tenant who just unilaterally decides to use the deposit as the last months rent ... when that is mentioned or happens I know that it is almost definite that there will be damage etc when the house is expected.

Repairs using tenancy deposit

Comments