Dilapidation charges after several short leases

[iftg]

R rents an office or a flat from L several times, each year signing a one-year lease agreement. Before the first lease but not before the other leases R accepts the property from L in a certain documented condition. L pays visits to the property on a regular basis and doesn't express any concern about the state of the property. When the last lease expires L claims that R should pay dilapidation charges to bring the property back to the shape in which it was at the commencement of the first lease. R refuses to pay.
Who is right?

 

[IanSuth]

Are they both businesses and what does it say in the lease/contract re dilapidations

 

[DontAsk]

A new lease or simply an extension of the existing one?

 

[iftg]

"Save for natural wear and tear, to keep the property and fixtures and fittings in the same state of repair as they are on the commencement date. Any works required to reinstate the property or the fixtures and fittings will be charged on the prevailing market rate and payable by L on written demand from L."
The commencement date was new for every new annual contract. It was not an extension.
L is a business.
I am not sure why it makes a difference whether R is a business but assume yes.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

I think you are clutching at straws on this one. I suggest proper legal advice if you want to pursue this.

My take on this is that whether the lease was an extension or a separate lease each time is not relevant in this case.

Each lease contract with that wording requires that at the end of the lease the property is in the same state - they can therefore effectively pursue dilapidations under each lease if necessary. As it has been the same leaseholder all the way through, the leaseholder cannot say they are not liable for dilapidations caused by themselves under a previous lease (unless the terms of the lease have a time period for pursuit of dilapidations).

 

[fisicx]

L is right. R has to pay.

 

[IanSuth]

I am not sure why it makes a difference whether R is a business but assume yes.

because domestic and commercial tenancies are treated differently in law

Basically as a business you are expected to have equal "power" as landlord, be expected to take professional advice and are thus liable for any silly contracts entered into - domestic the law recognises more of a power disparity and so places checks and balances on what landlords can do

 

[WaveJumper]

And what measures if any did you take to document the condition of the premises before signing the lease, ie what evidence have you got to argue (if needed) your case with the landlord.

 

[Solvelaw]

Correct procedure is ensure there is a photographic schedule of condition at the time a new lease in entered into to avoid disputes and this is carried over during the course of renewals. But in the absence of this, items or aspects in disrepair will need to be in repair at end of tenancy. Dilapidations is not a blank cheque, it is there to return the property to an agreed standard but it will take into account several factors such as age character etc of the property. There is a protocol for this which can be done by the Landlord serving a schedule and the tenant producing a counter schedule. It is far better to spend funds to settle issue rather than lawyering up, have been involved in such claims the costs rack up quickly and sometimes there might not be an outright winner with valid points on both sides. Sometimes you end up with each party paying their own costs.

 

[Mark James]

Why didn’t you just use A and B. L and R is a new one on me- might start using it.

 

[iftg]

Correct procedure is ensure there is a photographic schedule of condition at the time a new lease in entered into to avoid disputes and this is carried over during the course of renewals. But in the absence of this, items or aspects in disrepair will need to be in repair at end of tenancy. Dilapidations is not a blank cheque, it is there to return the property to an agreed standard but it will take into account several factors such as age character etc of the property. There is a protocol for this which can be done by the Landlord serving a schedule and the tenant producing a counter schedule. It is far better to spend funds to settle issue rather than lawyering up, have been involved in such claims the costs rack up quickly and sometimes there might not be an outright winner with valid points on both sides. Sometimes you end up with each party paying their own costs.

The photographic evidence wasn't taken. The procedure was not followed by the Landlord. The Landlord is not claiming there was a damage beyond fair wear and tear. They rely on the full stop in the middle of "Save for natural wear and tear, to keep the property and fixtures and fittings in the same state of repair as they are on the commencement date. Any works required to reinstate the property or the fixtures and fittings will be charged on the prevailing market rate and payable by L on written demand from L." In other words, they are relying on the second sentence being considered in isolation from the first one. And also they are considering the several annual leases we had there as one.
And you are absolutely right: it would be great to resolve this in an amicable way but it takes two to tango. They simply took money from our deposit and hope we won't sue.

 

[IanSuth]

How much have they taken and in your best guess what would it have cost you to run a lick of paint around banisters/skirting/doors and replace some mats/carpets (the min you would likely get away with in any end of lease)

 

[eteb3]

I would think you have a good argument that notwithstanding the full stop, “reinstate” is meaningless unless referred back to “state” in the previous sentence. But if you’re at this level of detail, you’re going to have to get lawyered up, as Solvelaw puts it

 

[iftg]

I would think you have a good argument that notwithstanding the full stop, “reinstate” is meaningless unless referred back to “state” in the previous sentence. But if you’re at this level of detail, you’re going to have to get lawyered up, as Solvelaw puts it

Good point re the reference to the first sentence. Thank you.

 

[iftg]

How much have they taken and in your best guess what would it have cost you to run a lick of paint around banisters/skirting/doors and replace some mats/carpets (the min you would likely get away with in any end of lease)

They hadn't said what exactly was to be done. They simply charged us after we left. We had been sure we were within fair wear & tear.

 

[IanSuth]

They hadn't said what exactly was to be done. They simply charged us after we left. We had been sure we were within fair wear & tear.

I think you are at least within your rights to ask "what?" as you should have had a dilapidation's report before any work commenced that you could have replied to

 

[Michael Loveridge]

How much in cash terms are you talking about?

 

[iftg]

How much in cash terms are you talking about?

About £3,000.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

So pay it and be happy, legal fights would soon eat up that amounts and probably cost a lot more. Right or wrong they have you by the Bxlls. Take it as a cheap lesson about reading this and every contract and understanding your liabilities, even under pressure of some dodgy salesman talk that is not written into the contract

 

[fisicx]

About £3,000.

Your legal fees will be higher than this and probably unrecoverable.