Right to charge for re-painting?

jetlagged

Hi everyone, Ive been looking all over the net for something on damage caused by blu tack. One walls covered and will need to be scraped clean and repainted. The place was done only 6 months ago. I'm not sure its beyond wear and tear but will definitely be a pain to clean off. Whats the general idea with it?

Victor

Blu tack should come off with a rub of a bigger piece of blu tack and maybe a wipe of a warm, damp cloth.

lucky-colm

Victor wrote: »

Blu tack should come off with a rub of a bigger piece of blu tack and maybe a wipe of a warm, damp cloth.

hope this fixes your problem
lol

jetlagged

I hope it does too..problem with the blu tack is even when i comes off it leaves an oily mark on the paint so it'll still need re-painting, and that means doing the whole room to get the colour right. About the last 2 foot of the wall is nearly black as if the tenant was resting their feet on it every day. Surely the tenant should take the fall for walls being in a bad condition when previously were perfect. Re-painting after every tenancy? Maybe I'm over reacting with the credit crunch pinch and that.

Victor

How about a vinyl paint that is more easily washed?

Agent J

Re paint after 6 months?

If the paint job was done properly in the 1st place then i would say it was beyond normal wear and tear.

SoupyNorman

In terms of charging the tenants, the short answer is no, unless you specifically told them not to put Blu-Tac on the wall...maybe they did that as a substitute for nails?

People drawing or intentionally marking walls aside, tenants should never pay for painting, it's the cheapest and quickest way for a LL to freshen up the property.

Maybe ...get creative and try paint the marked wall with a complimenting color or have tenants for 1year leases so repainting is more justified.

Kipperhell

bravestarr082 wrote: »

In terms of charging the tenants, the short answer is no, unless you specifically told them not to put Blu-Tac on the wall...maybe they did that as a substitute for nails?

The OP has stated the tenant has not cleared the wall of Blue Tac so a cleaning charge can be applied. If there is ANY damage caused by the chosen method of adhering pictures to the wall this would be considered beyond normal ware and tear. Tenants do not have the right to redecorate without express permission so the landlord never has to expressly state it should not be done.

As landlord there will be cleaning and refurbishment between tenancy so generally a repaint is standard. 6 months is an incredibly short period of time between paint jobs.

Blue Tac is not magical and often damages paint and wall covering. In saying that I would keep any charge to a minimum such as the cost of the paint and not the labour but make it clear that you are sharing the burden of the tenant's choice.

Xiney

Landlords can't actually charge the tenant for cleaning. They certainly can't get it out of the deposit. I suppose in this case the paint job is "damaged" though so it's all up to interpretation.

Have you tried to wash the walls with TCP? This is usually the first step before repainting anyway - and it might be enough.

antoinolachtnai

Yes they can charge the tenant for cleaning! The property is supposed to be left in a clean state.

SoupyNorman

Kipperhell wrote: »

The OP has stated the tenant has not cleared the wall of Blue Tac so a cleaning charge can be applied.

It would be a cold cold day before any landlord charged me a 'cleaning charge' for Blu-Tac.

The rental market is rife with landlords who treat their rental properties like their own private residences, expecting the property is maintained to their exacting standards. They see scuff marks on a wall and are straight away up in arms. Usually, it's in instances where the LL is directly tending to their property, this is where you should have a letting agent to monitor the property, they will only raise an issue if they see extensive violations of a lease.

LL's are hugely exploitative of the fact that they can withhold a deposit with almost no consequences and thereby make the tenants agree to a portion of the deposit being retained for 'cleaning..etc' as the tenant just wants as much of the deposit back as possible...It's especially prevalent in college accommodation. The bigger blame lies with the legislation however!



OP, just clean/paint it yourself this time and ensure that you erect a big sign stipulating Blu-Tac is strictly Prohibited.

mikemac

Next time try to get tenants for 12 month leases.
But good tenants can be hard to get and your price has to reflect this.

After 12 months it might be likely the place needs new paint.
But you can't charge a tenant for that, normal wear and tear.

There are far too many landlords taking painting and cleaning charges from deposits.
A cleaning charge for bluetack?? Are you going to hire in contract cleaners at 40 euro an hour?

What I do and have always done is meet the landlord on moving out day.
Any issues can be sorted out man to man on the spot.
If something was damaged you can put your point across. What you don't do is hand over the keys and naively expect a full deposit to be posted to you weeks later!

PCPhoto

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Yes they can charge the tenant for cleaning! The property is supposed to be left in a clean state.

YES !! .... but how clean is clean ? its all down to interpretation.

Personally I wouldn't think that the small "oily" marks that would be left behind from Blu-tack would be an issue, I know I would have a problem if any landlord tried to claim they were forced to repaint the whole wall due to these "marks".

OP . .... do you mind if I ask how many and what size the Blu-tack marks are ?, are they all over the house or just on one wall ? Any chance of pics ?

Wear and tear is expected when a tenant moves out ..... and I certainly wouldn't consider using blu-tack as redecorating !!! would you have preferred if they used a hammer and nails - so you would actually have some damage to complain about ?

I think you should post pics of the Blu tack and consider if you actually need to repaint or if you can just clean it with a cloth and soapy water.

My vote goes in favour of the tenant - you shouldn't try to blame the tenant for this and shouldn't try to claim any costs from him/her.... to be honest I think it sounds like you are looking for ways to keep some part of the deposit.

SoupyNorman

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Yes they can charge the tenant for cleaning! The property is supposed to be left in a clean state.

Where does it say so?

From threshold...

The landlord must return promptly any deposit paid by the tenant. The deposit may be retained or deductions made where there are 1) rent arrears or 2) costs incurred to repair damage above normal wear and tear.

Cleaning would never overtake 'wear and tear' on the ladder and 'wear and tear' does not even justify any part of a deposit being taken.

Of course all LL's would love their property to be left sparkling clean by tenants but hey...go get the Jif and a sponge!




On a side note, both the apartment I rented last year and the one I'm in this year were both 1st lets and had to be cleaned by us after we moved in....I didnt go looking for money off the rent

jetlagged

If a place is given to a tenant in good condition, its expected to be handed back in that condition. In this case the walls were painted new, and I would expect anyone to clean any big marks off before leaving. I should probably charge for the time it'll take to clean down the wall since putting up posters is altering the way the apartment was given to them and goes beyond wear and tear. I don't care what anyone says its a royal pain in the ass to have to put time aside to go get paint and all the gear and then a few hours to do the job. The tenant takes this for granted and especially since rents are so low now the least a l/l can expect is courtesy both ways.

Xiney

The tenant isn't legally responsible for cleaning.


Welcome to being a landlord.

SoupyNorman

jetlagged wrote: »

If a place is given to a tenant in good condition, its expected to be handed back in that condition. In this case the walls were painted new, and I would expect anyone to clean any big marks off before leaving. I should probably charge for the time it'll take to clean down the wall since putting up posters is altering the way the apartment was given to them and goes beyond wear and tear.

You should not be a landlord, your post boarders on lunacy suggesting that putting up posters is beyond wear and tear.

jetlagged wrote: »

I don't care what anyone says its a royal pain in the ass to have to put time aside to go get paint and all the gear and then a few hours to do the job. The tenant takes this for granted and especially since rents are so low now the least a l/l can expect is courtesy both ways.

It is indeed a royal pain in the ass but you dont seem to grasp that it is not the tenants problem, again did you directly say "do not put up posters"?

The rents are not low, they are what they should be, if not lower. Anyhow, are you suggesting that when the rents were through the roof your tenants could of had a dirty protest in the living room and you'd of not minded?


Your expectations are too high, I would wish that all tenants were clean and tidy but the reality is they are not.

Xiney

Honestly, did you believe that there was no work involved in being a landlord at all? Just buy the place and watch the money roll in, no need for effort, guaranteed income, everything's happy as larry?


Being a landlord is a business. Business requires work, effort, time AND good sense. Not to mention knowledge of the applicable laws.

coffee_cake

Xiney wrote: »

Landlords can't actually charge the tenant for cleaning. They certainly can't get it out of the deposit. I suppose in this case the paint job is "damaged" though so it's all up to interpretation.
.

What about when they do keep the deposit and claim it's for cleaning? What is your recourse then?

Xiney

Talk to threshold because they're keeping the deposit illegally.

mikemac

jetlagged wrote: »

I should probably charge for the time it'll take to clean down the wall since putting up posters is altering the way the apartment was given to them and goes beyond wear and tear.

A few hours for some bluetack? Why not hire some professional decorators and the tenants deposit to pay for it?
I typed bluetack and removal into google, there are several solutions

jetlagged wrote: »

The tenant takes this for granted and especially since rents are so low now the least a l/l can expect is courtesy both ways.

Rents are dropping but unless you're on fixed rate, I'd say your mortgage dropped even more.
Even then, that has no relevance on rent.
Being a landlord is more then checking internet banking once a month to see rent was paid.
You're providing a service and yes, that involves hassle, work and compliance with legislation.

I'm betting you're not a professional landlord and this is probably the only buy to let place you own. It's amateur landlords who cause most hassle in my experience.
Give me a millionaire landlord with multiple properties any day, they mostly know what's involved.

jetlagged

Well it looks like Ive got my answer anyway. Yes I am over reacting. Being honest the tenant really got up my nose, in the last month it didnt suit them everytime I had prospective new tenants to look at it so never got to show the place, as a result now I'm into my first week of vacancy and no rent and have lost the interested parties. Yet the tenant walks away happily with a full deposit. Thats unfair. Fair enough with the repainting I'm lucky its not the whole apartment Ive to do.

DublinDilbert

jetlagged wrote: »

I hope it does too..problem with the blu tack is even when i comes off it leaves an oily mark on the paint so it'll still need re-painting, and that means doing the whole room to get the colour right.

If the room was only painted 6 months ago like you said you can easily touch up a few area's and the paint will match fine. Its not metallic paint on a car where you have to do the whole side of the car!

Also some potential tenant isn't going to say, I'm not taking the room as there is a very slight miss-match in the paint!

Another tip is to choose something like magnolia cause its very easy to touch up afterwards....

antoinolachtnai

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Where does it say so?

From threshold...




Cleaning would never overtake 'wear and tear' on the ladder and 'wear and tear' does not even justify any part of a deposit being taken.

Of course all LL's would love their property to be left sparkling clean by tenants but hey...go get the Jif and a sponge!

The Threshold website is not really something you'd want to be relying upon.

From Dublin City Council:

http://www.dublin.ie/uploadedFiles/City_Development_Board/A%20Dubliner%27s%20Guide%20to%20the%20Residential%20Tenancies%20Act%202004%20U%E2%80%A6.pdf

In one of the cases reviewed, the landlord was allowed an allowance for cleaning the property, by order of the PRTB.

On a side note, both the apartment I rented last year and the one I'm in this year were both 1st lets and had to be cleaned by us after we moved in....I didnt go looking for money off the rent

Why did you take possession if it wasn't clean?

SoupyNorman

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In one of the cases reviewed, the landlord was allowed an allowance for cleaning the property, by order of the PRTB.



Why did you take possession if it wasn't clean?

How many cases were reviewed, you know...for context.




There wasnt excrement smeared on the walls or that, it was more subtle dust. I like things clean.

antoinolachtnai

By following the link readers will see that a small number of cases were reviewed as examples of the operation of the PRTB.

In all of the other cases reviewed, cleaning was apparently not at issue.