Unrepaired Tenant Dilapidations

[dls]

All that section 18 does is to limit the amount of damages you might be able to claim.

If they pull things down without consent that is not disrepair but waste.

The last clause is quite separate in application to the previous ones. It is not a provision as to repair.

[Landlord12]

I am finding all your comments very useful - well I think some light is showing!

I was not aware of the difference between 'waste' and 'disrepair', will have to google that.

[formerly_IKB]

All that section 18 does is to limit the amount of damages you might be able to claim.

If they pull things down without consent that is not disrepair but waste.

The last clause is quite separate in application to the previous ones. It is not a provision as to repair.

The original inventory states the garden wall to be 3 x 6ft panel fences (the wall was physically hidden behind it, supporting it) but I have

• a plan drawn by one of the tenants showing that they intended to remove the wall
• a letter from myself to them stating on what conditions they could remove the wall.
• a subsequent letter to them after the wall was removed observing that they had not done it to the required standard

There was, at least, conditional consent to remove the wall.

And it's not just about the wall, but the unreplaced fridge and freezer, and the cleaning.

[dls]

Conditional consent when the precondition is not satisfied is not consent. It is not even clear that the consent was conditional.

I am only pointing out that the situation is a little more complicated than at first thought and that the claims are of different natures.
Heaven help the judge who has to sort it all out

[theycantdothat]

I agree with dls that section 18 looks irrelevant with respect to the fence and wall since no tenant's repairing covenant is involved.

The position is rather unclear. The OP says that the tenant had permission to take down the wall and fence subject to conditions which were not fulfilled. On the face of it it seems that the OP was happy for the wall and fence to come down and accordingly difficult for him to require them to be replaced. If we knew what the unfilled conditions were we might be able to comment on whether he is entitled to be paid compensation for failure to comply with them.

[Landlord12]

Been away for a day or 2.

The wall removal was part of a 'proposed' driveway creation at tenants expense. I quote below from my initial letter to the tenants

Drive
A concrete or tarmac driveway, if not built correctly, will potentially reduce the value of the property. If problems developed with the drive, you would be liable for this cost at the end of your tenancy. As that liability for cost is shared with your guarantors, I could not approve such a construction without their written agreement.

An alternative would be a gravel drive. It would need to be excavated to 200mm, compacted with a vibrating plate, then filled with 150mm with plain gravel. After re-compacting you will have around 75mm to fill with whatever scalpings you decide to finish the drive with. Providing you adhere to this specification I would have no problem with you doing this work.

Access
Subject to an approved drive being constructed, then I have no problems with the rear wall and fence being altered to allow access, providing suitable gates are obtained.

I should add that I have not claimed for the drive - the actual construction consisted of the rubble from the wall laid on soil & a scrap car parked on top.

[dls]

That is not clearly a conditional consent. It looks like consent.

[theycantdothat]

From the extract quoted, it appears to be as suggested in my last post i.e. the OP is only entitled to claim for failure to construct the drive as specified.

[Hairyloon]

From the extract quoted, it appears to be as suggested in my last post i.e. the OP is only entitled to claim for failure to construct the drive as specified.

Which, by my estimate could cost a damn site more than replacing the wall.

[Landlord12]

That is not clearly a conditional consent. It looks like consent.

As you will appreciate, I am out of my legal depth here and appreciate that posters may well know more than I do, but could you clarify why

Providing you adhere to this specification I would have no problem with you doing this work.

and

Subject to an approved drive being constructed, . . . providing suitable gates are obtained.

are not conditional?