Should landlords have the right to refuse DSS tenants?10:43 AM, 20th May 2019
About 4 weeks ago 124
I made a post a few months ago here: https://www.property118.com/im-being-threatened-by-a-tenants-solicitor/94613/
So after all these months I have an update on this. The tenants solicitor got a surveyor, who confirmed minimal works needed to be done. He confirmed the mould in the brand new kitchen was caused by condensation, not damp. We agreed to the scott schedule he provided, which was for works estimated at around £1400.
Two small areas of damp downstairs, a joist which had rotted to be replaced (it was actually wordworm, not damp in the joist) and to reseal the timber frames externally. We agreed to this as they were very straight forward to do.
The solicitor has now come back with a ‘Part 36’ settlement offer of £4000 + £150 for a cupboard that was apparently damaged and had to be thrown away (there is no evidence this cupboard ever existed). Obviously I totally disagree with this ridiculous sum.
Does anyone have any experience of replying to Part 36 offers?
The solicitor is now reminding me I have 21 days to respond or court proceedings will be issued. I completely dispute the whole claim, and honestly believe the Housing Disrepair Protocol doesn’t apply, as I have responded to all reports of damaged well within what any court would class as a ‘reasonable’ time frame.
This whole matter arose because of the mould in the kitchen, which their own surveyor proved was condensation, the other matters were never reported until these solicitors got involved, but I repaired as I would of anyway. Have I shot myself in the foot by accepting their ‘Scott Schedule’? Their Scott Schedule was actually a lot less work than my own schedule suggested, but the works I suggested were not required under Section 11 so I guess were not included.
I was going send a very short reply, and save the pages and pages of evidence/explanations for a court defence:
“As you are fully aware from the evidence supplied, the time frame from which I responded to your client’s initial report of issues with the property and my attempts to arrange inspection and subsequent repairs were well within what any court would consider as ‘reasonable’. Additionally, since the first report I have made numerous well documented attempts to carry our repairs, all of which have been obstructed by both yourselves and your clients for over 6 months. This has undoubtedly caused further damage to my property.
Therefore, your Part 36 offer is refused in its entirety. I would welcome the opportunity to present the facts in court, where I will be counter-claiming against your client for all associated costs. I would remind you and your client that courts take a very dim view of spurious ‘no-win, no-fee’ claims.”
I put a new kitchen in at a cost of over £5k last year, would it be appropriate to say I will be making a claim towards the cost of this, as the surveyors report confirmed the mould was caused by condensation, and so the replacement of the kitchen was necessary because of tenant actions? Or should this be saved for another day?
Thanks in advance for any advice anyone can give
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.
Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agentsLearn More