Here is a question to the blog clinic from Frances (not her real name) who is a tenant:
I am moving out of my flat in a few weeks. We have had a mould problem for the 3 years we have been there which the landlord is aware of.
They advised heating and ventilating the property which we have done throughout the tenancy.
They are putting the problem down to drying our clothes in the flat – however it is a second floor flat with no outside space at all so we have no choice but to dry our clothes in the flat.
We have cleaned the mould with bleach (as advised by the landlord) whenever it has appeared however this has resulted in black smears on the walls where we have cleaned it.
We are now moving out and the landlord wants us to pay for the flat to be redecorated due to the smears on the wall.
As far as I was aware it is our responsibility to treat the mould and clean it however any staining that occurs as a result is the landlords responsibility. Is this correct?
The flat wasn’t redecorated before we moved in and we have been there for 3 and half years so would it be due a repaint by the landlord anyway?
Answer:
My view is that the tenants are not liable for the cost of re-decoration, but I would be most interested to hear what others have to say.
The reasons why I think the tenants are not liable for this cost are:
- The tenants were not provided with anywhere else to dry their clothes – for example the landlord could easily have provided a tumble dryer or a washer dryer
- The tenants were following the landlord’s guidance
- The property had not been newly re-decorated when they moved in
- As Frances points out – the flat was probably due for re-decoration anyway – it has not been re-decorated for at least 3 ½ years and it could be as long as 5 years
- In the circumstances, the marks on the wall can be put down to fair wear and tear
So I think you should challenge the deduction and if the landlord will not agree, ask for the matter to be referred to adjudication (as I assume that the landlord intends to make a deduction from your deposit).
What do others think though?
The following response is from our Head of Adjudication …
“Based on the facts presented above, and bearing in mind that each case will be considered on the basis of the comparative strengths of the supporting evidence provided to the Adjudicator, it would seem that there is a strong argument that the Tenant should not be considered liable for the costs associated with redecoration.
The presence of mould in itself does not automatically infer liability on the part of the Tenant. The adjudicator will be mindful that condensation and mould can be caused by a tenant’s lifestyle or it can be a sign of a structural issue that would fall under a landlord’s repairing obligations. Further independent or supporting evidence may therefore be needed before attributing liability. However, in any case, given the details and location of the flat, it does not seem on the face of the facts provided that it would be unreasonable or negligent for the Tenant to dry clothes within the property (providing windows are left open), and would suggest the building should have adequate means of ventilation for this purpose. Arguably, the Tenant has only used the property in a reasonable and an expected manner in which it was given to her, and has followed the advice of the Landlord in attempting to combat the build-up of mould.
Furthermore, as per the joint guidance issued by the Association of Residential Letting Agents, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the ‘Guide to Best Practice for Inventory Providers’, the adjudicator will bear in mind that the average lifespan of decor in a rented property is not generally expected to exceeds five years, and consideration must be given to the fact that the decor wasn’t freshly painted at the start of the tenancy. Consequently, when this is coupled with the fact the Tenant went onto occupy the property for a further period of approximately three and a half years, this would suggest that an element of redecoration would have been required at the end of the tenancy regardless of the actions of the Tenant. It therefore seems that the actual loss suffered by the Landlord would be nominal in the circumstances, as the original decor would have been approaching the end of its lifespan in any case.”
Thank you Kevin that is a really helpful answer. Please pass my thanks on to your Head of Adjudication.
As a landlord, I always redecorate the property where necessary and photograph every wall, ceiling and floor between tenancies. When a new tenants arrives, I go around every room with them pointing out any imperfections (cracks, uneven surfaces, etc) and mark them on the photos. At the end of the tenancy, it is then easy to prove that any damage is their doing. General wear and tear is excepted, of course, and is dealt with before the next tenant moves in. Any damp that appears is dealt with immediately, as it has much more serious implications than complaining tenants (i.e. much higher cost if not dealt with!)
Thanks Roger.
For the benefit of other readers, I would just mention that you should get the tenants to sign and date the photographs just to prove when they were taken and that they agree with them, and also get them to sign and date the inventory.
Otherwise there maybe difficulties using them in adjudications.