Rowley Waters
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My initial reaction was to agree with Phil and say it’s impractical. But then I thought.
If the tenancy is terminating then the L/L may rightly feel obliged to expedite a check-out to satisfy the terms of the tenancy because if there are obvious dilaps/issues/damages it would not be fair to pass these on to the new tenant with no liability to the outgoing occupant. You may need to agree with both L/L and new tenant (as it’s a fresh tenancy) that certain caveats must apply as the prevailing furnishings will prohibit you from carrying out your usual thorough inspection.
The (new) tenant taking out the new tenancy will then need to agree to you updating the existing Inventory, in accord with your check-out inspection and the caveats you’ve stated, and sign it off as an accurate assessment of the Inventory at commencement of the new tenancy.
This being the case, any financial liabilities connected to the outgoing occupant can be realistically assessed, but both the L/L and (new) tenant must be made aware that at the end of the new tenancy there can be no retrospective considerations of liability regarding the previous tenancy.
It might just work. Either way, I hope this helps.
Hi Yvonne,
I think the principle with mid-term inspections is to first establish with the client what he/she actually wants you to do. Then, not only can you both be clear as to what is expected but also you can charge an appropriate fee for the service.
Hope this helps.
My understanding is that when calculating cost liability it is an industry norm to expect allowance for redecoration every 7/8 years. Therefore if you are asked for your opinion in this case I would suggest that there be no charges against the tenants EXCEPT maybe a consideration from their deposit IF the removal of the darker paint incurs additional expense as opposed to the cost had the wall not been repainted. In any event I doubt that such a consideration should be significant.
My view on a second inspection is suspect, simply because any Tom, Dick or Harry and their dog could have had access (by that I of course mean, contractors, bailiffs, L/L, Agent etc) such that the results of your primary inspection just might have been compromised (in the eyes of an arbitrator).
As Joanne has already stated, just make sure that your normal Check-Out Report is as accurate as possible but with a carefully worded caveat to the effect that you cannot be held responsible for areas that could not be properly inspected due to residual tenant possessions.
Hope this helps.
The situation whereby an outgoing tenant can be charged for changing locks as a result of not returning keys is a valid one but should always be taken in context. After all, if a tenant really wanted to criminalise the process then there’s nothing stopping him/her taking copies of keys whilst in occupancy, not informing the L/L then appearing to return the correct numbers of keys.
That said, if the lost/missing key is ‘restricted’ then changing locks and charging the outgoing tenant is perfectly legitimate, regardless of context.
Happy Easter. Hope this helps.
Hi Lawrence, no offence but firstly please be aware that the detectors/alarms we inspect are for CO and not CO2. Seems to be a common misunderstanding but the regulations exist to cover domestic detection of carbon monoxide not carbon dioxide.
As for your question I explain to clients that I am not able to inspect for dates, or test for that matter, any detector that is beyond my normal/reasonable reach to access. The one exception being raised ceilings where detectors can be tested using an extendable stick but still not date inspected. I certainly do not carry steps as part of my inventory equipment.
In my view detectors need to be sited where they can be both tested and date inspected, if they are inaccessible for whatever reason I record them as uninspected together with the reason why.
Hope this helps.
Yes Karen, you’ve correctly answered your own question, your last sentence is bang on the button and, since you also asked, YOU need to attend the property to enable YOU to complete YOUR Check-Out.
I do worry about landlords asking questions such as this. Whatever makes them think that they can request a professional Check-Out report AFTER they’ve redecorated and instructed you to carry out an Inventory Update? Sometimes I wonder if they have anything else between their ears besides a cash register.
I’m sure that he is a lovely L/L but sadly he needs educating about our profession and exactly what it entails, and why!
Good luck with your teacher/pupil meeting. 😉
Hi Geraldine,
As per Joanne’s post, if you are contractually bound to a client then the level of cover you need should meet their requirements. If you have no binding contract then for a sole trader I would suggest that adequate PI cover starts at £250,000 whereas PL cover should commence at £1m, often depending upon your turnover.
My insurers are Hiscox and have been for some years now.
Hope this helps.
My understanding of the law is that a CO detector should be sited within the same room as the item it is monitoring. Then there is a view that if said room is a bathroom the detector should ideally be placed outside the room to avoid false alarms. It would seem to be left to the owner/fitter to decide whether to be legal or practical.
I may be wrong Lubna, but I think RKirwan was perhaps eluding to Daniel’s comment in his post above on this thread when he stated “we will review the matter and confirm further on Tuesday or Wednesday next week”. That would have been 14/15 November.
Be my guest … no charge! 😉
Assuming that permission was not granted for any changes the logical view would suggest that the L/L has the right to claim for the cost of returning the kitchen to fairly resemble the habitable state it was in at start of tenancy, including fitments & appliances as listed on the Inventory, but less an allowance for normal wear & tear and age apportionment over 12 years. Then add the full cost of re-fitting including labour (probably 3 separate quotes needed).
Not a straight forward calculation but part of the overall claim which will presumably also include outstanding rent.