Landlord won't pay for repairs

Graham

Gijoseph wrote: »

Not only overzealous but they seem to be sensitive little snowflakes. Isn't that right graham?

OK so in review.

You suggested the OP do something that could get his tenancy terminated.

I gave you a yellow card for it.

If that's considered snowflakey, so be it

Mod Note: Gijoseph don't post on this thread again.

TheChizler

elperello wrote: »

Repairs along with other expenses are deducted from total income. You pay tax at your rate on the net income.

I think they're addressing the false impression that repairs like this can be claimed back in their entirety from the tax bill and don't cost the landlord anything, when essentially you only get the equivalent income tax back pre-deduction (20-40%?).

jimmycrackcorm

Op, if you're convinced that the rusty rail caused it, I.e. due to wear and tear and the landlord won't pay, then raise a complaint with the rtb about it. Let them adjudicate.

You might not be successful though as it is likely a combination of force of use as well as the rail.

The_Conductor

saraem1iy wrote: »

There weren't any problems with it - this is the first instance it had jammed.

It jammed, you forced it, the glass shattered?

Anything with movable parts is liable to jam- and this is a shower door- so its exposed to detergents, hair- whatever.
I'm not entering into any debate about whether it had metal rollers that degraded, or not- quite simply- I wouldn't know if it was a factor if it stared and bit me in the face.

Once you force something- and this was a large thin sheet of glass- it does risk shattering- and it doesn't take much force to shatter it (I've shattered a mirror recently with a very minimum of force- you couldn't really even call it force- but it was sufficient to shatter a full length mirror).

Once the door jammed- you shouldn't have forced it.
I don't see how you can argue that the landlord is liable here- but I do think it would be a good gesture on the parts of both the landlord and tenant to go 50:50 on it...........

Lumen

elperello wrote: »

Repairs along with other expenses are deducted from total income. You pay tax at your rate on the net income.

You apparently don't undertax tax deductibility.

For a fully deductible expense, taxable income is reduced by the amount of the expense, not tax. Since the taxable income is not taxed at 100%, the expense still costs money after taxes are accounted for.

Do the maths.

Ave Sodalis

In the OP's defense, some of the rollers came off our shower door. It wasn't from excessive force either, likely just cheap quality.

Sleeper12

elperello wrote:

The entire amount paid in the year can be claimed. The documents relating to these costs must be retained for a period of 6 years, as per Revenue.

Again I never said it can't be offset against tax. Offsetting something against tax doesn't make it free. It still costs the land hundreds of euro after tax relief.

No one pays 100 percent tax so when you get to offset something against tax you don't get 100 percent back. This is basic accounting. If a shower door costs 400 and the land is paying say 20 percent tax then the shower door costs the landlord 320 after tax.

Sleeper12

OnDraught wrote:

I'm not describing anything. I'm taking the op at their word. Not much point in responding to this thread if you need to see the damage yourself in fairness.

I just didnt see any point in calling out opinions on rusty plastic wheels when my point was to ignore the ridiculous suggestions on this thread and to open a dispute if they feel like they are in the right.

People have suggested engaging a solicitor when there is no need as we have a proses & others suggested deduction from the rent. This is illegal

OnDraught

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I just didnt see any point in calling out opinions on rusty plastic wheels when my point was to ignore the ridiculous suggestions on this thread and to open a dispute if they feel like they are in the right.

People have suggested engaging a solicitor when there is no need as we have a proses & others suggested deduction from the rent. This is illegal

People are calling for a solicitor because the op has suffered an injury which a lot of people here are refusing to acknowledge. Only a solicitor will know whether the op has a case or not. But don't pretend there isn't instances where landlords will be held responsible for injuries sustained in rented accommodation.

The_Conductor

OnDraught wrote: »

People are calling for a solicitor because the op has suffered an injury which a lot of people here are refusing to acknowledge. Only a solicitor will know whether the op has a case or not. But don't pretend there isn't instances where landlords will be held responsible for injuries sustained in rented accommodation.

Of course there are an infinite number of instances in which a landlord will very fairly be held responsible for injuries suffered by a tenant (or any other party).

I quoted the exact passage from the OP- where they said the door jammed- they shoved it, and it shattered........

That is the sort of scenario which can't reasonably be expected or preventative action taken to ensure it doesn't happen (save removing the door altogether and possibly putting up a plastic curtain- which could come down and be a trip hazard or something).

At some stage- people have to accept- accidents happen. It doesn't mean someone is at fault- sometimes things just happen.

I personally think it would be a fair and reasonable suggestion that the tenant and landlord go 50:50 on the repair- however, if it was a decent tenant, and I was their landlord- I'd probably just pony up and chalk it down to experience.

Things happen- it doesn't automatically mean someone is to blame..........

hawkelady

OnDraught wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I just didnt see any point in calling out opinions on rusty plastic wheels when my point was to ignore the ridiculous suggestions on this thread and to open a dispute if they feel like they are in the right.

People have suggested engaging a solicitor when there is no need as we have a proses & others suggested deduction from the rent. This is illegal

People are calling for a solicitor because the op has suffered an injury which a lot of people here are refusing to acknowledge. Only a solicitor will know whether the op has a case or not. But don't pretend there isn't instances where landlords will be held responsible for injuries sustained in rented accommodation.

You've been watching too many " if you had an accident and it wasn't your fault" ads on Tv !!
The op was about wanting to get the landlord to buy and fit a new shower door !!
You however want to sue because the tenant cut himself due to him pulling too hard on a door that the tenant admits to was being jammed !! Cop on !!

I'd also imagine engaging a solicitor would cost more that a shower door !!

marieholmfan

I think the tenant has nothing to lose by talking to a personal injuries lawyer. They are under no obligation to proceed with the case even if the lawyer thinks that it is winnable.

It seems ludicrous as described but perhaps it isn't.

The_Conductor wrote: »

Of course there are an infinite number of instances in which a landlord will very fairly be held responsible for injuries suffered by a tenant (or any other party).

I quoted the exact passage from the OP- where they said the door jammed- they shoved it, and it shattered........

That is the sort of scenario which can't reasonably be expected or preventative action taken to ensure it doesn't happen (save removing the door altogether and possibly putting up a plastic curtain- which could come down and be a trip hazard or something).

At some stage- people have to accept- accidents happen. It doesn't mean someone is at fault- sometimes things just happen.

I personally think it would be a fair and reasonable suggestion that the tenant and landlord go 50:50 on the repair- however, if it was a decent tenant, and I was their landlord- I'd probably just pony up and chalk it down to experience.

Things happen- it doesn't automatically mean someone is to blame..........

OnDraught

The_Conductor wrote: »

Things happen- it doesn't automatically mean someone is to blame..........

This is the thing here though, the landlord is blaming the op and wants them to pay for something that has broken in a dangerous fashion in a house they don't own. Under no circumstances would I be paying for this.

This wasn't a trip hazard, it's a massive sheet of glass shattering on bare feet. That shouldn't happen. Have a look at the link on the first page.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Fol20 wrote: »

The best of both worlds is to go 50/50 on this. Landlord can then expense it so he pays a minimal amount and it only costs you half the amount. At least this way you avoid confrontation and this isn’t one of these things that would normally brake down in such a manner without some extra force

I don't have any axe to grind here, as I'm neither a landlord nor a tenant, and I think the above advice is pretty much the most sensible way to go, assuming the landlord is prepared to compromise.

Markcheese

Shower screens can, and do just explode...
Don't do anything rash, or get angry.. Photograph what ever is left of the mechanism.. And see can you come to an arrangement.. In the meantime get a cheap showercurtain :-)

crossmolinalad

Had something similar with a ceramic hob that shattered in pieces
Had to fix it myself and was not a problem , my insurer paid for it

shaunr68

Tigger wrote: »

glass shower doors on rollers were no around 30 years ago

You didn't say "on rollers" in your original statement. You added that later after several people pointed out that they had a glass shower door thirty years ago.

Tigger wrote: »

glass showers are not 30
year old

syndrome777

Markcheese wrote: »

Shower screens can, and do just explode...
Don't do anything rash, or get angry.. Photograph what ever is left of the mechanism.. And see can you come to an arrangement.. In the meantime get a cheap showercurtain :-)

this. Or second hand plastic door.

Who knows how old these were, and now for the OP to buy glass again, and new with her own money.
No way that makes sense.

If you are planing to stay there for a while I wold try and agree with LL to 50/50 for a new plastic ones this time maybe

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

I think the tenant has nothing to lose by talking to a personal injuries lawyer. They are under no obligation to proceed with the case even if the lawyer thinks that it is winnable.

It seems ludicrous as described but perhaps it isn't.

Its b*llocksology like this that has resulted in our car insurance premiums being so high. Claiming person injury when you dont have it or its your own fault etc.

Op closes door and it breaks, he gets a bit of a cut and you are suggesting he go trying to make a claim against his LL. A person attempting a claim like this should be fined. If it was your own house and you cut yourself who would you go trying to sue? Honestly this sue culture needs to be stopped in its tracks and fast.

marieholmfan

Gwendolyn Tasty Marriage wrote: »

Its b*llocksology like this that has resulted in our car insurance premiums being so high. Claiming person injury when you dont have it or its your own fault etc.

Op closes door and it breaks, he gets a bit of a cut and you are suggesting he go trying to make a claim against his LL. A person attempting a claim like this should be fined. If it was your own house and you cut yourself who would you go trying to sue? Honestly this sue culture needs to be stopped in its tracks and fast.

What sort of an argument is this. If there is a 'sue culture' in this country then the tenant should take advantage of it.

marieholmfan

Markcheese wrote: »

Shower screens can, and do just explode...
Don't do anything rash, or get angry.. Photograph what ever is left of the mechanism.. And see can you come to an arrangement.. In the meantime get a cheap showercurtain :-)

Yes buy a shower curtain and clean up after photographing.

hawkelady

marieholmfan wrote: »

Gwendolyn Tasty Marriage wrote: »

Its b*llocksology like this that has resulted in our car insurance premiums being so high. Claiming person injury when you dont have it or its your own fault etc.

Op closes door and it breaks, he gets a bit of a cut and you are suggesting he go trying to make a claim against his LL. A person attempting a claim like this should be fined. If it was your own house and you cut yourself who would you go trying to sue? Honestly this sue culture needs to be stopped in its tracks and fast.

What sort of an argument is this. If there is a 'sue culture' in this country then the tenant should take advantage of it.

Give me strength ...... it's called personal responsibility .... if more people had it the world would be a better place

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

What sort of an argument is this. If there is a 'sue culture' in this country then the tenant should take advantage of it.

No they shouldn't, they injured themselves so I've no idea what argument could be made for blaming the LL. They are renting the house from him its not his responsibility to look after them inside the house and hold their hand.

It boils my blood to see people suggest what you are. All it does it push up insurance premiums.

elperello

Lumen wrote: »

You apparently don't undertax tax deductibility.

For a fully deductible expense, taxable income is reduced by the amount of the expense, not tax. Since the taxable income is not taxed at 100%, the expense still costs money after taxes are accounted for.

Do the maths.

Sorry for not being more clear I thought I covered the tax in two of my posts.

My maths include an old fashioned business concept goodwill.

The LL gets a fit for purpose working fitting in his property and the appropriate tax allowance to take the sting out of the cost. He also gets a happy tenant who I am assuming pays on time and is a good tenant. By digging his heels in he has a broken fitting and a tenant who is not happy.

hawkelady

elperello wrote: »

Lumen wrote: »

You apparently don't undertax tax deductibility.

For a fully deductible expense, taxable income is reduced by the amount of the expense, not tax. Since the taxable income is not taxed at 100%, the expense still costs money after taxes are accounted for.




Do the maths.

Sorry for not being more clear I thought I covered the tax in two of my posts.

My maths include an old fashioned business concept goodwill.

The LL gets a fit for purpose working fitting in his property and the appropriate tax allowance to take the sting out of the cost. He also gets a happy tenant who I am assuming pays on time and is a good tenant. By digging his heels in he has a broken fitting and a tenant who is not happy.

What has a tenant paying on time got to do with anything. That should be a given anyway , yeah??

elperello

hawkelady wrote: »

What has a tenant paying on time got to do with anything. That should be a given anyway , yeah??

Agreed it should be.
However reading some of the landlord's posts here and elsewhere I would say it's not universal.
As I said I think goodwill is important in all areas of business. But that's just me.

Sleeper12

elperello wrote: »

Sorry for not being more clear I thought I covered the tax in two of my posts.

My maths include an old fashioned business concept goodwill.

The LL gets a fit for purpose working fitting in his property and the appropriate tax allowance to take the sting out of the cost. He also gets a happy tenant who I am assuming pays on time and is a good tenant. By digging his heels in he has a broken fitting and a tenant who is not happy.

That was never in any math class I was in

elperello

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That was never in any math class I was in

Funny enough I was never any good at maths!

Balance sheet of life in rude health though:)

Electric Sheep

The_Conductor wrote: »

It jammed, you forced it, the glass shattered?

Anything with movable parts is liable to jam- and this is a shower door- so its exposed to detergents, hair- whatever.
I'm not entering into any debate about whether it had metal rollers that degraded, or not- quite simply- I wouldn't know if it was a factor if it stared and bit me in the face.

Once you force something- and this was a large thin sheet of glass- it does risk shattering- and it doesn't take much force to shatter it (I've shattered a mirror recently with a very minimum of force- you couldn't really even call it force- but it was sufficient to shatter a full length mirror).

Once the door jammed- you shouldn't have forced it.
I don't see how you can argue that the landlord is liable here- but I do think it would be a good gesture on the parts of both the landlord and tenant to go 50:50 on it...........

You don't need to use force for a shower door to shatter.

We were woken at 3am one morning by a huge crash coming from the bathroom. The shower door had spontaneously shattered, the bath was full of little cubes of glass. It have us quite a shock, I am glad that neither of us was using the shower at that time.

Sleeper12

Electric Sheep wrote:

We were woken at 3am one morning by a huge crash coming from the bathroom. The shower door had spontaneously shattered, the bath was full of little cubes of glass. It have us quite a shock, I am glad that neither of us was using the shower at that time.

Yes shower doors can & do spontaneously shatter however op never claimed that this happened. Op applied pressure as the door was stuck