Rowley Waters
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Debbie’s point about anything being put to the vote is an interesting one. The opportunity to vote can be made available on any given topic during an AGM. Every member has the opportunity to request a topic for inclusion on the AGM agenda.
Since AGMs moved to ‘zoom’ rather than physical attendance I seem to recall fewer and fewer members actually bothering to register. I think there were no more than 4 of us ‘on the floor’ last July, maybe one or two more, but it was very poorly supported by the general membership.
Thank you Lubna. Apologies for my misunderstanding.
Dear Lubna,
I fear that removing this thread will be not only undemocratic but counter productive for the AIIC.
Members’ views are important, need to be heard and legitimate questions need to be answered publicly.
After all, is this not a prime reason for having a Forum? And who is “WE have instructed”?
Please rescind the instruction to Angels Media and allow people to air their views.Thank you.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention ‘edenbrooke’ for it is indeed concerning.
Despite the topic arguably being a ‘perceived issue’ according to the ***type on the Forum header and therefore one that should otherwise be directed to Central Office first, I believe in this instance it is important enough for the matter to be made public to all Members.
On the face of it there is certainly a suggestion that the direction of the FB promotion does indeed conflict with the modus operandi of the AIIC, specifically our independent status. It also implies, rightly or wrongly, that the Association is in need of an income source boost and that we’re not too bothered about from where it comes.
Lubna has been seen to contribute to the Forum so perhaps she would be kind enough to bring this thread to the attention of others on The Board so that they or The Chair can provide an explanation that will hopefully put all our minds at rest.
Checking validity of detectors is indeed for compliance, but their compliance, not ours. Yet another great example of an Agent trying to pass on their responsibility to an innocent third party.
That said, if a date is viewable on a detector, ceiling or otherwise, then I record it. Out of reach or undated detectors are noted as such, although I do keep a long foldaway stick in my bag for test purposes.
Hi Simon,
Yes, I agree that it’s not straight forward and I would take the trouble to explain my thinking to the L/L or Agent before the start of tenancy so that we’re all onside.
Cleaning and charges raised relating to comings & goings in individual areas can be dealt with like any other let and “cleaning to a professional standard” should be applied as acceptable.
As for the communal areas one cannot expect all occupants to fork out for what in effect would be a mid-term pro-clean when just one of them leaves. So, if the communal areas are acceptable (ie. good domestic clean) I would not raise a charge against the leaver but if they are poorly cleaned I would suggest an appropriate apportioned contribution for cleaning. I’d use this principle for every leaver as and when they leave taking into account their period of stay.
Then, given that the L/L cannot reasonably expect the communal areas to be thoroughly cleaned until the end of all tenancies (ie. when all occupants leave together) it must be the responsibility of the final occupants to ensure that the property is left cleaned to a professional standard. If it isn’t then such a cost to bring up to standard can be divided amongst the final occupants but LESS the costs already raised by outgoing previous occupants.
I might add that in my experience of multiple occupancy lets it is often understood by both L/L and Agent that a degree of leniency is allowed in respect of communal area cleanliness bearing in mind that the (higher) level of rent is much more geared to overuse of such areas compared with other types of lets.
Similarly I have found that when one occupant leaves then the others often realise that it’s in their own best interests to make an effort to clean communal areas.
Bit of a lengthy explanation but I hope it all makes sense.
Hi Albert,
My past experience of multiple occupancies (I don’t do many now) is that when one tenant leaves it is required to properly check-in & check-out the rooms/spaces solely allocated to that individual and amend the inventory accordingly. The communal areas must also be checked and the inventory updated where necessary and any dilaps recorded, leaving the rooms/spaces allocated solely to the remaining 3 occupants uninspected.
A complete new inventory of the whole property is therefore not required but you will need to record and date any changes to the communal areas for future reference thus creating an updated (v2) inventory that covers the start date of the new occupant. It’s an involved task that requires precise detail & dates to be kept if dilapidations related to any or all occupants are to be assessed accurately.
So I’d be invoicing for each of the Check-Out and the Check-In plus an amount to cover your time and effort in having to update the inventory.
Hope this helps.
I’m with Sally.
I’ve had this happen a couple of times. First, years ago, I opened some very tall heavy curtains that were closed and the whole rail/curtain assembly fell down on me. The L/L said that it was my fault and I should pay for the ‘repair’. I replied with a very firm and definite NO and pointed out it was a maintenance issue as the rail was not secure. Several emails were exchanged until the L/L realised that she was on a loser and gave in.
More recently when testing a venetian blind one of the top securing screws came adrift. I simply notified the Agent and their contractor repaired it, no argument.
As I’ve said a few times on other posts, we as professionals need to stand firm when things are not our fault and not succumb to erroneous claims by Agents or L/Ls who either can’t be bothered or who have short arms and long pockets.
You know what happened and why … stick to your guns!
Hope this helps.
You seem quite certain, with photographic evidence, that the filter was not where they said it was so why not stick to your guns?
The Agent has acted on impulse, spent money unnecessarily and wants you to reimburse to cover their error. Let them “suck it up”! If you don’t then the Agent can tell the L/L that you’re the one who admitted the mistake and will pay for the replacement. How fair is that?
I may sound unnecessarily pugnacious but to me it’s a matter of principle, pure and simple … and yes, this time it’s “just” £30 … but next time? If you give in against your principles once then who knows what lies ahead.
Hope this helps … but then I can also understand if it doesn’t! 😄
What a lot of waffle from the L/L, so much so that it’s beyond my understanding, perhaps that’s his intention.
The “deemed immaterial” comment about the carpet simply serves to illustrate naivety on the part of the L/L … and what’s this ‘draft’ Report to which he refers?
I’d also suggest that his reluctance to proceed to arbitration is likely to be a hidden admission that a decision would not be granted in his favour and that it is he, not you, who is struggling to understand the comments in your Report.
If I were you in this situation I would simply reply to the L/L (cc to tenant) stating that the so-called ‘draft’ Check-Out Report was in fact the final document (assuming this to be the case) but should further clarification be needed regarding your professional assessments stated therein then you will be pleased to answer any questions in more detail (assuming you will be).
I can only offer my opinion, obviously, without sight of any of any documentation or images, but I still hope it helps.
Firstly, if your dates are correct then surely it has been 3 years rather than 4. Then, in order for the L/L to justify any claim the exact age & quality of the carpet must be determined and proof supplied. You say there were marks evident at start of tenancy so presumably the carpets were therefore not new, but if there is evidence that the carpets were professionally cleaned (or new) at start of tenancy then one can reasonably expect them to be pro-cleaned at end of tenancy. Such cleaning may well remove some of the additional marks that concern the L/L, but if not then it is your professional judgement, rather than the L/L’s opinion, as to whether or not after 3 years the marks can be considered fair wear & tear. Any excessive marks can of course be assessed for compensation to avoid betterment. I would not alter your Check-Out report and if the L/L feels the need to go to arbitration then that is his decision.
Hope this helps.
Given that some of the Water Companies, Thames and Southern to name just two, are quite clear in their online instructions to property owners as to how to both access and read their external meters, I very much doubt that there are either any legal or technical issues. If you open an individual ground meter ‘lid/cap’ then make sure you replace it correctly. It’s really not rocket science.
What is clearly not advisable is for anyone to attempt to open ‘multiple meter housings’ that involve large & heavy pavement access covers under which the many meters are not usually independently identified anyway. Steer well clear of those.
I’ve been including both a photograph and an expiry date of all smoke and CO detectors into my initial property visit and subsequent Check-In Report for some time now. It only takes a few extra moments when testing them. If the date is not immediately visible and the detector is accessible (ie. not on a high ceiling) and detachable then I detach to inspect. If no date is seen then that’s what I report.
I see many contrary opinions above but in my view it’s not so much a “not my job” issue it’s more an action that takes minimal extra time that enhances the professional relationship I have with my clients.
Hope this helps.
Hi Clare, it would seem that others may wish to keep their methods to themselves, either that or they’re so busy marketing that they have no time to refer to the Forum 😄.
For my sins I am perhaps in an enviable position of not currently wanting or needing to expand further but will always follow up personal recommendations which is undoubtedly the least expensive and most rewarding of marketing ploys.
If, however, I were in need of more business I would consider direct marketing to local Letting Agents to be top of my list. A posted or hand delivered carefully worded professional leaflet as initial contact then fairly swiftly followed up by either a phone call to the Lettings Manager (nobody else) or even an impromptu “fly-by” visit when you’re “just passing”.
Others might think this to be “old school” given the multiplicity of media outlets available these days but for me I still believe that the personal touch works better if quality work and long term business relations are to be gained.
Hope this helps.