Awaiting Deposit Refund

StompToWork

So, we were recently renting in the Dublin area. The house we were renting was great, one or two niggles, but for the most part us, as tenants, had a reasonably good relationship with the landlord.

My question is, now that we have moved out, we are waiting for him to survey the property and calculate how much of our deposit we are owed back. Problem is, he is say that he has to buy new blinds and have the curtains cleaned due to smoke damage.

Now, we are smokers, but there was nothing in the lease to specify "No smoking allowed". The landlord is claiming (well, it will be contained in a PRTB report) that there is considerable smoke damage and will be using a portion of the deposit to replace or clean the effected items.

Anyone know where we actually stand on this? If we were smokers, with no clause in the lease to specify no smoking, are we still liable for cleaning or replacing of smoke-effected items?

ztoical

Yes you are liable smoking is not normal wear and tear. A tenant has a choice to smoke or not. You choose to smoke and that smoke gets into the air ducts, the carpet, stains the walls,etc and its not an easy thing to get out once its there. It doesn't matter that the lease didn't say no smoking, you were free to smoke but you also needed to repair any damage caused by your actions or else have the cost for the repair taken from your deposit.

Kosseegan

You hardly expect someone else to pay for cleaning up after you. If you as a supposedly mature adult choose to pollute the atmosphere, while at the same time destroying your health, you have every right to do so. What you do not have a right to do is make other people suffer the consequences.

The_Conductor

StompToWork wrote: »

Anyone know where we actually stand on this? If we were smokers, with no clause in the lease to specify no smoking, are we still liable for cleaning or replacing of smoke-effected items?

You can smoke- you can bowl, you can throw darts at every wall in the house- the fact that these are, or are not catered for in a lease irrelevant- the effect of partaking in any of these activities in a property is damage over and above that which would be considered 'normal wear and tear'.

I have no idea how much your deposit was- but it is normally standard operating practice to repaint a property (or at least some of the rooms), along with possibly purchasing new blinds/curtains and doing some pretty major cleaning after a smoking tenant. It wouldn't be too unusual for the bill to be more than the deposit.......

3DataModem

That is why I generally don't want short-term tenants if they are smokers.

If a smoker wants to rent, I tell 'em that if they stay 2 years that I won't deduct repainting from the cost of deposit. I also offer a rent discount for a two year lease, alas nobody wants to sign for two years anymore as they want to renegotiate the rent! Fair dues I suppose.

pooch90

smccarrick wrote: »

You can smoke- you can bowl, you can throw darts at every wall in the house- the fact that these are, or are not catered for in a lease irrelevant- the effect of partaking in any of these activities in a property is damage over and above that which would be considered 'normal wear and tear'.

Actually, where a landlord allows a dog, he has to allow additional wear and tear for a dog so it is likely that a lease which allows smoking also has to allow wear and tear for smoking.

As far as i know, the deposit is for damage outside of normal wear and tear. Smoke 'damage' in a smoking allowed house would probably be counted as normal wear and tear.

Long and short, watch them landlords and if in doubt ask threshold - it's what they are there for.

The_Conductor

pooch90 wrote: »

Actually, where a landlord allows a dog, he has to allow additional wear and tear for a dog so it is likely that a lease which allows smoking also has to allow wear and tear for smoking.

As far as i know, the deposit is for damage outside of normal wear and tear. Smoke 'damage' in a smoking allowed house would probably be counted as normal wear and tear.

Long and short, watch them landlords and if in doubt ask threshold - it's what they are there for.

If a landlord allows a pet on his/her property, it is not unusual to seek a pet deposit to cover any damage they may cause.

With respect of other damage (over and above possible scuff marks on walls, scratched skirting boards, or possibly repainting for a longer lease (typically a 4 -5 year lease), the normal course of action is the landlord does a walk-through with the tenant before commencement of the lease, and both agree a notarised inventory along with details of the condition of the property, before a letting agreement is signed. Its becoming more and more common for landlords to video their properties, as evidenced in recent PRTB disputes.

With respect of what constitutes normal wear and tear- there is no definition set down in law- however just because a landlord agrees to allow a tenant keep a pet, or smoke- or play boules in the hallway- and the damage is over and above what would be considered 'normal' by any reasonable person, does in no manner infer a right on the tenant to cause abnormal abuse or destruction of property, furniture or fixtures or fittings......

If you genuinely think its ok to smoke in a rented property without any consequences for your deposit- I would have to question just what you're thinking of. I'm more than familiar with several cases in this forum, where not only did tenants loose their deposits- they were also pursued for the balance of what it took to restore properties to their pre-let state, along with lost rental income.........

Feel free to argue what constitutes normal wear and tear to your hearts content- however there is precedent which would indicate that restitution after a smoking tenant is not considered normal wear and tear......

pooch90

smccarrick wrote: »

If a landlord allows a pet on his/her property, it is not unusual to seek a pet deposit to cover any damage they may cause.

Unless specifically dealt with in a lease, normal wear and tear caused by having a dog cannot be taken from the deposit.

Whether they decided to apply a larger deposit because there is a dog is irrelevant and no more than a distraction to confuse people reading this. Don't you agree?

With respect of other damage (over and above possible scuff marks on walls, scratched skirting boards, or possibly repainting for a longer lease (typically a 4 -5 year lease), the normal course of action is the landlord does a walk-through with the tenant before commencement of the lease, and both agree a notarised inventory along with details of the condition of the property, before a letting agreement is signed. Its becoming more and more common for landlords to video their properties, as evidenced in recent PRTB disputes.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

With respect of what constitutes normal wear and tear- there is no definition set down in law- however just because a landlord agrees to allow a tenant keep a pet, or smoke- or play boules in the hallway- and the damage is over and above what would be considered 'normal' by any reasonable person, does in no manner infer a right on the tenant to cause abnormal abuse or destruction of property, furniture or fixtures or fittings......

You appear to be intent on painting smoking in your own home as some sort of abuse. Its normal for a smoker to smoke inside their own home. Not all smokers will choose to do so, but I am at a loss to understand how you could possibly think that smokers smoking inside is unusual.

If you genuinely think its ok to smoke in a rented property without any consequences for your deposit- I would have to question just what you're thinking of. I'm more than familiar with several cases in this forum, where not only did tenants loose their deposits- they were also pursued for the balance of what it took to restore properties to their pre-let state, along with lost rental income.........

If you smoke in a non-smoking house then you are liable for the damage. That is not in question here.

However, you are doing the landlord thing of not understanding that they are not smoking in a rented property - they are smoking in their own home, which they are paying for. You may price that into the rent but I would be surprised if anyone ever said it was okay to use their deposit as a redecorating budget.

Simple solution is not to be fooled by landlords on here trying to justify withholding deposits and just to ring Threshold to find out.

The_Conductor

Certainly ring Threshold, if you feel you are being dealt with unfairly.
I am not a landlord by the way......

ztoical

pooch90 wrote: »

Actually, where a landlord allows a dog, he has to allow additional wear and tear for a dog so it is likely that a lease which allows smoking also has to allow wear and tear for smoking.

As far as i know, the deposit is for damage outside of normal wear and tear. Smoke 'damage' in a smoking allowed house would probably be counted as normal wear and tear.

Long and short, watch them landlords and if in doubt ask threshold - it's what they are there for.

The lease does not allow smoking, it simple says nothing about forbidding it. That is not the same as allowing it. Damage caused by smoking does not fall under normal wear and tear as its not something that is vital for someone to live in a property like say walking on the carpet or using furniture.

jaffa20

Alot of people on the this forum seem to be landlords or pro landlords. I would like to see a clear definition of what is wear and tear as the prtb don't seem to have a clear definition and there doesn't seem to be one out there.

In my opinion, if nothing is broken, then it is counted as wear and tear. If a landlord does not want smokers in an apartment then they should state this in the original advert and contract. If there are mild stains caused by smoking, they should accept the consequences of allowing their tentants to smoke in their property. If a tenant has paid all their rent on time and not caused any physical damaged to their "home", they shoud be reasonable by returning a deposit to the tenant.

The_Conductor

jaffa20 wrote: »

Alot of people on the this forum seem to be landlords or pro landlords. I would like to see a clear definition of what is wear and tear as the prtb don't seem to have a clear definition and there doesn't seem to be one out there.

In my opinion, if nothing is broken, then it is counted as wear and tear. If a landlord does not want smokers in an apartment then they should state this in the original advert and contract. If there are mild stains caused by smoking, they should accept the consequences of allowing their tentants to smoke in their property. If a tenant has paid all their rent on time and not caused any physical damaged to their "home", they shoud be reasonable by returning a deposit to the tenant.

There is no definition anywhere of what constitutes wear and tear- which is why there are such a large number of related cases at the PRTB. Some landlords think its normal to steam clean carpets and charge the tenants for it, while some tenants think they are doing the landlords a favour by painting the property mad psychedelic colours, doing random DIY, or having their cat use the doors in the kitchen as their favourite scratching post........

It would be nice and neat and tidy if there was a definition of what constitutes normal wear and tear, but sadly, there isn't. Its the same in The States by the way- many of the equivalents of the PRTB are snowed under with similar issues- and if you visit US property forums- you'll see the same things seem to be global........ The big difference in the States is lets are unfurnished- which mitigates the wear and tear on furnishings........

Some people here do seem to be very very insistent that smoking, and the manner in which it affects a property- should be considered normal wear and tear. Perhaps it might be by a smoker, and/or other tenants who smoke- however non-smokers might be utterly repulsed by it. We shut all our windows if a neighbour a few balconies down is smoking outside- and if we're in a house and someone starts smoking indoors- we make some excuse and leave. We're far from unusual- smokers do not always appreciate how their actions might affect others. Personally I've turned down very good offers on cars, as soon as I smelt cigarette smoke (despite them looking impeccably clean), and actively avoid designated smoking areas in work, as do most of my non-smoking colleagues.......

Its not a landlord being a Nazi thing- smoking, and the residual effects of smoking- can be utterly repulsive.

ztoical

jaffa20 wrote: »

Alot of people on the this forum seem to be landlords or pro landlords. I would like to see a clear definition of what is wear and tear as the prtb don't seem to have a clear definition and there doesn't seem to be one out there.

In my opinion, if nothing is broken, then it is counted as wear and tear. If a landlord does not want smokers in an apartment then they should state this in the original advert and contract. If there are mild stains caused by smoking, they should accept the consequences of allowing their tentants to smoke in their property. If a tenant has paid all their rent on time and not caused any physical damaged to their "home", they shoud be reasonable by returning a deposit to the tenant.

I'm not a LL just someone who has rented for a good number of years and who can say that if your a smoker you might not be aware of just how much damage smoking can cause on a property and how hard it is to get rid of the smell and I would count it as something beyond normal wear and tear - If you have to throw out an otherwise prefectly good curtain due to the stink of smoke then it is broken. I've turned down apartments on several occassions cus of the smell of smoke.

pooch90

smccarrick wrote: »

Some people here do seem to be very very insistent that smoking, and the manner in which it affects a property- should be considered normal wear and tear. Perhaps it might be by a smoker, and/or other tenants who smoke- however non-smokers might be utterly repulsed by it.

Like said to this before - if, as a landlord, someone doesn't want a smoker in his house then stipulate this in the lease.
If you allow smoking though then you have to accept that smoking carries with it an element of wear and tear.

Landlords are entitled to try and price smoking into the rent but I do not for a second believe that the PRTB will allow a landlord to use a deposit as a redecorating fund.

Deposits are for damage outside of normal wear and tear. A smoker smoking inside their own home, in a property which permits smoking, cannot be classed as extraordinary damage by any stretch of the imagination.

The_Conductor

Redecorating?
Please.....
Essential remedial work is what is required, not blanket 'redecorating', to return a residence to what would be considered habitable by a non-smoker, following the tenancy of a smoker.

I am fully familiar with cases of tenants who claimed to be non-smokers to get the property they wanted, alongside smokers who considered smoking out a bedroom window to be fully in compliance with a no-smoking in the house rule.......

Its only very recently that the EU confirmed that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against smokers (in all contexts- but the test case was in relation to employment law).

You just don't seem to 'get' the destruction that cigarette smoke and nicotine cause property- and you keep emphasising that 'a smoker smoking inside their own home, in a property which permits smoking, cannot be classed as extraordinary damage by any stretch of the imagination'.....

The fact of the matter is- they are renting the property. It is only their temporary home. A landlord is perfectly within their rights to deduct reasonable sums to restore the property to a habitual state at the cessation of their lease, save deductions for normal wear and tear. Your argument seems to me to be that cigarette smoke and nicotine stains could be considered to be normal wear and tear, if its not explicitly stated that the house is a non-smoking house. The PRTB disagree with you- as do I.

Not specifically forbidding smoking in a property- is not an invitation to smoke there, and does not absolve a tenant from the responsibility to maintain the property in a reasonable state

pooch90

smccarrick wrote: »

Redecorating?
Please.....
Essential remedial work is what is required, not blanket 'redecorating', to return a residence to what would be considered habitable by a non-smoker, following the tenancy of a smoker.

You are very naive if you think that Irish landlords will act honestly in this.

I am fully familiar with cases of tenants who claimed to be non-smokers to get the property they wanted, alongside smokers who considered smoking out a bedroom window to be fully in compliance with a no-smoking in the house rule.......

Irrelevant as I have clearly state that a non-smoking lease does not allow smoking and under such circumstances smoke damage is extraordinary. This serves only to muddy the waters.

Its only very recently that the EU confirmed that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against smokers (in all contexts- but the test case was in relation to employment law).

Whats that got to do with this? Are you just trying to penalise smokers by any means now?

You just don't seem to 'get' the destruction that cigarette smoke and nicotine cause property- and you keep emphasising that 'a smoker smoking inside their own home, in a property which permits smoking, cannot be classed as extraordinary damage by any stretch of the imagination'.....

Are you saying that it is extraordinary to think that a smoker might wish to smoke in their own home?

The fact of the matter is- they are renting the property. It is only their temporary home. A landlord is perfectly within their rights to deduct reasonable sums to restore the property to a habitual state at the cessation of their lease, save deductions for normal wear and tear. Your argument seems to me to be that cigarette smoke and nicotine stains could be considered to be normal wear and tear, if its not explicitly stated that the house is a non-smoking house.

So people who cannot afford to purchase don't get to have homes? Thought we were trying to get away from this obsession with property thing?!?

I think you need to understand that a rented property is a home.

The PRTB disagree with you- as do I.

Doubt it, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Of course feel free to post information to the contrary as it will settle the point straight out and save a load of typing.

Not specifically forbidding smoking in a property- is not an invitation to smoke there, and does not absolve a tenant from the responsibility to maintain the property in a reasonable state

Correct me here but a tenant is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their own home subject to the terms of their lease. If the lease doesn't specifically forbid smoking within a house then (ifsofacto) it permits it.

ztoical

pooch90 wrote: »

If the lease doesn't specifically forbid smoking within a house then (ifsofacto) it permits it.

There are lots of things leases do not forbid but one cannot assume because they aren't listed in the lease that means any damage caused by said actions falls under normal wear and tear. I'm pretty sure a lease is not going to say no sex so by your logic if I have sex in my rent apartment and damage the bed or the wall [or anything else ] the LL cannot take repair money from deposit for this. Cooking would be allowed in your home but if you cooked food that splashed alot of oil everywhere, caused smoke damage and left a stink that soaked into soft furnishings it would be considered above normal wear and tear.

pooch90

ztoical wrote: »

There are lots of things leases do not forbid but one cannot assume because they aren't listed in the lease that means any damage caused by said actions falls under normal wear and tear. I'm pretty sure a lease is not going to say no sex so by your logic if I have sex in my rent apartment and damage the bed or the wall [or anything else ] the LL cannot take repair money from deposit for this. Cooking would be allowed in your home but if you cooked food that splashed alot of oil everywhere, caused smoke damage and left a stink that soaked into soft furnishings it would be considered above normal wear and tear.

If I smoked and burned the curtains - a fair though less dramatic equivalent to your sex analogy - then that is well beyond reasonable wear and tear. If I have sex and have the landlord charge me for a new mattress then that is not on.

By your logic though, a person who likes to cook a lot of curries could get charged for the (supposed) smell of curry in the kitchen.

ztoical

pooch90 wrote: »

By your logic though, a person who likes to cook a lot of curries could get charged for the (supposed) smell of curry in the kitchen.

People have, maybe not in Ireland as we don't yet have as big a population mix but in the UK its not uncommon for money to be taken from a deposit for damages resulting from cooking. If you've any knowledge of Asian cooking you'd know it can involve alot of oil splash and certain dishes can have smells that soak into furniture and worktops to the point that they need to be replaced. We've had threads on here from people complaining about cooking smells soaking into shared hallways and public spaces.

The stink left by prolonged smoking is not a supposed smell, it is a very real stink. There is a huge difference between something having a bit of smell that will go quickly and a smell that has soaked into furniture. It will not leave, cannot be cleaned out and the only option is to throw it away and replace it. People who smoke normally don't notice it as their own clothes are just as bad but ask anyone who doesn't smoke and they can smell it a mile off.

BostonB

pooch90 wrote: »

Y...I think you need to understand that a rented property is a home....

So what? Theres lots of things you can do in your home (that you own) that you can't do in a home (that you rent). Saying its a home doesn't remove that difference.

BostonB

As the question another way. How many non smokers do you think would move into a house after a smoker?

pooch90

BostonB wrote: »

So what? Theres lots of things you can do in your home (that you own) that you can't do in a home (that you rent). Saying its a home doesn't remove that difference.

Yes, and those differences are those which are set out in law and which are set by the terms of the lease.

If you cause damage beyond wear and tear then you are liable. The question is whether smoking in a house, in according with all agreements, justifies a landlord getting to repaint his walls and upgrade his fixtures and fittings out of the tenants deposit.
Fact is that rent has to cover the cost of general wear and tear (being a landlord has costs other than just the mortgage). If you feel like you can be picky you can stipulate non-smoking tenants but if you do not then you have to accept that there may be smoking in a house (30% of the pop smoke) and that this smoking may have an inherent element of wear and tear which cannot be deducted from the deposit.

This is actually how I got into this thread as I have had issues with a landlord before regarding a dog and subsequently contacted Threshold. They told me that a landlord who permits pets will have to allow or a greater degree of wear and tear, even though it would be a greater level of wear and tear than an average tenant, as they permitted it.

Long and short of it is that landlord, much as he would like to, cannot allow smoking in a house and then complain that it smells of smoke. There is only one way to smoke a fag and unless you can show that they did something peculiar which resulted in extraordinary damage to a property then you are at nothing.
Simple solution for landlords is not to allow smoking. Just please don't allow smoking to get in the tenants and then complain that the house isn't as pristine as it would have been with a non-smoker - it cannot be.

pooch90

BostonB wrote: »

As the question another way. How many non smokers do you think would move into a house after a smoker?

This is a business decision for the landlord. if you allow smoking in a house then it may have knock on consequences for future tenancies.

However, if you need someone in the house and the only way you can get those tenants is to allow smoking then don't moan afterwards about the smell of smoke.

You got the benefit of allowing smoking by having a tenant. The cost is that you may possibly have some work to do to get it back to a condition where it will attract non-smokers because smoking is inherently dirty.

BostonB

My original questions was what has the term" home got to do with it. Since your replies don't mention home at all. So I think we can assume, then its got nothing to do with it. Its really down to whats in the lease/rental agreement only.

I agree if smoking not mentioned in the lease/rental agreement, you can't complain or make extra deductions for it. Well not for smoke at least. Damage as in burns, or specific ash stains, is different. Thats beyond normal and wear and tear even for a smoker. IMO. Well at least we agree that smoking has financial impact for a landlord. To take your figures, you might be limiting the property to 30% of the market vs 70% for non smokers. Landlord will also have higher decoration costs. As you say its easier for the landlord simply not to allow smoking.

Personally if I was a smoker, I think I'd feel obliged to check was smoking was ok. or a pet. Or fixing engines in the kitchen, or kids, etc.

ztoical

pooch90 wrote: »

Long and short of it is that landlord, much as he would like to, cannot allow smoking in a house and then complain that it smells of smoke. There is only one way to smoke a fag and unless you can show that they did something peculiar which resulted in extraordinary damage to a property then you are at nothing.
Simple solution for landlords is not to allow smoking. Just please don't allow smoking to get in the tenants and then complain that the house isn't as pristine as it would have been with a non-smoker - it cannot be.

Go back and read the OP again. The LL is claiming 'considerable smoke damage' which would imply something beyond normal wear and tear.

Using the pet example. I have two cats and always have a lease state that it is ok for me to keep them in a property and they are taken into consideration for normal wear and tear. In our last property just before we moved I discovered they had picked up some fleas and after we'd moved out the LL said they'd found fleas in the property and were taking the cost of the flea treatment from our deposit. To me this is beyond normal wear and tear, yes animals can pick up fleas but had it happened before we were due to move I would have paid for the flea treatment myself anyway. Just because my lease allowed pets did not mean any and all damages caused by them fell under normal wear and tear.

LL in this case has stated considerable smoke damage, the OP has not said one way or the other if there was smoke damage only asked if the LL could take from the deposit for it. If it is considerable smoke damage then it does not fall under normal wear and tear.

BostonB

I think it would depend on what was meant by "considerable"

The_Conductor

pooch90 wrote: »

This is actually how I got into this thread as I have had issues with a landlord before regarding a dog and subsequently contacted Threshold. They told me that a landlord who permits pets will have to allow or a greater degree of wear and tear, even though it would be a greater level of wear and tear than an average tenant, as they permitted it.

Would this not be a better reflection of how you got into this thread from earlier this year?

pooch90 wrote: »

Long and short of it is that landlord, much as he would like to, cannot allow smoking in a house and then complain that it smells of smoke.

Lack of a no-smoking clause in a lease- does not infer permission to smoke in a property. A landlord is perfectly entitled to complain to his hearts content. Whether or not he is entitled to purloin a deposit to rectify damage caused by a cigarette smoker, depends entirely on whether the damage is considered by, ultimately the PRTB, to be above normal wear and tear on a property. It would be up to the landlord to show that he/she spent the money (by furnishing receipts) they are claiming to return the property to the condition the tenant had rented it in- and they would normally be expected to supply documentary proof (often video or photographic evidence) that this expenditure was necessary. If they can show that the reasonable restitution of the property took longer than 10 days to complete, they are also entitled to claim rent from the outgoing tenant for the period it takes to complete this work (they would need to demonstrate the time necessary to undertake the works, and this would be subject to review.

pooch90 wrote: »

There is only one way to smoke a fag and unless you can show that they did something peculiar which resulted in extraordinary damage to a property then you are at nothing.
Simple solution for landlords is not to allow smoking. Just please don't allow smoking to get in the tenants and then complain that the house isn't as pristine as it would have been with a non-smoker - it cannot be.

The OP reported in their post, state that considerable smoke damage had occurred, and that it is documented in a PRTB report, and that there are smoke affected items that need cleaning and/or replacing. They are not stating that they were allowed to smoke, simply that there was no clause in the lease forbidding them from smoking. I am also inferring from their post that the damages being sought by the landlord is less than the gross deposit- which would seem to fair and reasonable- there are plenty of cases where significantly more than the deposit have been sought.

The lack of a clear and emphatic clause stating they cannot smoke in the property- in no means they are allowed to do so (and aside from anything else, will invalidate many common household insurance policies).

I understand that you're a smoker, that you're renting and that you're annoyed that someone might tell you that you're not allowed to do something that you consider your right to do....... Unfortunately- while you may consider where you are living to be your home- it belongs to someone else, and that person has a reasonable expectation that you will take reasonable care of their property.

I am not being pro-landlord or anti-tenant- I am simply trying to get you to consider how other people view a property that has been used by a smoker, the additional costs a landlord may face as a result of this smoking and the fact that not officially stating that something is prohibited, does not infer a right to do something.

With respect of your comment about a Landlord possibly charging more to smoking tenants in recognition of the higher upkeep costs (not least of which is an increased insurance premium)- this is not allowed under the 2004 regulation- where any rent must be shown to be market rate for a given area. You cannot discriminate against a demographic on price grounds- you can of course refuse to rent to them- however, lack of recognition of the fact that potential smokers are tenants, is not an endorsement of their smoking.........

We do really seem to be going round and round in circles here.........

pooch90

ztoical wrote: »

Go back and read the OP again. The LL is claiming 'considerable smoke damage' which would imply something beyond normal wear and tear.

This is the problem. If there was considerable and demonstrable smoke damage, beyond what could be considered acceptable then you may have a point. If, however, the landlord is just using smoke damage as a cover for redecorating then I would object.

smccarrick wrote:

Would this not be a better reflection of how you got into this thread from earlier this year?

Nah, we moved to a new place so we don't have that problem anymore.
Edit: Actually the new landlord is so relaxed, we found some bloody cannabis plants in the back. Gone now.

Lack of a no-smoking clause in a lease- does not infer permission to smoke in a property

Unfortunately, yes it does. Put it this way, if he insurance was for a non-smoking house and the lease mentioned nothing about it being non-smoking, do you think the insurance would pay out?

With respect of your comment about a Landlord possibly charging more to smoking tenants in recognition of the higher upkeep costs (not least of which is an increased insurance premium)- this is not allowed under the 2004 regulation- where any rent must be shown to be market rate for a given area.

Sorry smc but this is silly. The rent you ask is your business and is a reflection of the house you are renting. The nicer the house, or the more favourable the terms towards the tenant the higher you can charge.
Look at daft - different houses in the same area at different prices.

What you are talking about is the rent review process, and again, as long as you can justify your price shift with regards to market then you are untouchable.


Anyway, there was never a question about whether smoking was allowed. There was a question about whether the landlord could allow smoking and then charge for smoke damage resulting from smoking. If the damage really was excessive then he has a very good case. Otherwise, though, the landlord cannot have it both ways, using a lease which permits smoking to draw tenants and then using the deposit to repair the associated wear and tear.

djimi

pooch90 wrote: »

Lack of a no-smoking clause in a lease- does not infer permission to smoke in a property

Unfortunately, yes it does. Put it this way, if he insurance was for a non-smoking house and the lease mentioned nothing about it being non-smoking, do you think the insurance would pay out?

My lease doesnt say anything about me not being able to smash holes in the wall with a mallet but Im pretty sure its not allowed. That is to say, I can do it, but Ill pay for it to be repaired when I move out. The same goes for smoking. Im not sure if smokers really realise just how much damage smoking indoors does to a property, but it takes a lot to get it put right. As a tenant if Im looking at a new place then Im not even going to bother going thru the front door if I smell lingering smoke. I know a lot of people who are the same. Smoking destroys everything; curtains, furnitures, carpets etc. Its above and beyond normal wear and tear. A person who smokes indoors surely must understand this and accept the extra cost as a consequence when smoking indoors in a rented accomodation?