Return of security deposit - problem with landlord.

We moved out of our leased flat and handed back the keys on January 17th.


In the rush to get out in time, we left some holes in the walls where various pictures, shelves and the TV had been. We met our landlord, apologised that these had not been filled and he was OK with it - he said he would get a quote from the management office, but that if it was too high we could come back and fill the holes ourselves. He gave us our deposit back in full.


His wife has since been on to us - the quote from the management office was for a staggering $6,000. This quote is for filling, sanding and repainting all the walls where there were holes.


We were under the impression that all landlords redecorated prior to releasing an apartment (the paint was that cheap Chinese white that marks really easily), and that our responsibility was only to fill the holes we had left in preparation for their redecoration.


Whilst we are happy to rectify the holes, we do not want to pay for someone elses decorating in the process. Can't help but feel we are being taken for a ride here.


Any thoughts gratefully received. Thanks.

The only real thought is that you were clearly not talking to the person who wears the pants in your landlords marriage. And without wishing to offend anyone but that is always how it seems to go.


If they are holding security deposits, well I don't really see what you can do. The very least is ask for bills from the contractor so you can verify that at least they spent what they say they spent. Since they are not, well if you kick up a fuss, they may decide to kick one back and over that kind of money its not worth the hassle.


It seems to me in this case prevention was better than cure, it would have been more prudent to have anticipated that they would try it on, but you didn't and its no good crying over spilt milk.


If the work has been done already the best you can do is tell them no and walk away. If it was me I would hope for seeing the bill. If has not been done then hopefully you can appeal to common decency and ask if they will allow you get the work done yourself. And don't bother speaking to the husband, that would be a waste of time, try and do a deal with the wife directly, perhaps she has a kind streak or can see reason. Sometimes they do. If they don't well you have to decide whether you want to walk away from that business relationship with your hands dirty.


Good luck

As I said, I am happy to pay for the holes to be rectified but do not see why I should pay for redecoration that would have to be done anyway.


I just want to know if the filling of the holes is the end of my responsibility, or whether it is fair to expect me to foot the entire bill.

You drill it, you fill it, we can agree on that. If the landlord says for whatever reason its not satisfactory, well its not the end of your responsibility is it. The issue you have is whether you choose to ignore that given you have your deposit in hand.


I don't see why you should have to pay for the whole wall to be painted myself, but I don't know what the options are, I have never painted and decorated or had to drill holes.


If you can provide a reasonable alternative, I don't see why you should have to foot the whole bill, if you cannot, well I think its fair to say that it is reasonable for a landlord to expect their property in the same condition they gave it to you in.


If it were mine I'd be looking for holes in the wall and and saying ahem too. If you can restore it cheaper than they can, then you have every right to ask to use your methods.

I personally could not do that. But since the poster has their deposit.

Totally agree Cara. Have never disputed that the holes are our responsibility but feel that tha painting comes under the landlords remit. Thanks.

Not really as that is not taking into account fair wear and tear (marks elsewhere on the walls mean that the whole wall would be repainted as standard) or what was agreed with the landlords husband at the time. I have several UK properties that are leased and the deposit return scheme is heavily regulated so that you cannot take money for betterment or improvement of the property, which, in my opinion, charging us for total redecoration would be.

Look mate it seems to me that you want validation of how you see things, and weren't really looking for an alternate view, but rather justification for your own. (thats ok we all do that)


I see your point, but the fact of the matter is you drilled some holes in a wall which you didn't own, and when it has been pointed out by the owner you are reluctant to pay what he says it costs top ensure he or she gets it back in a condition they feel is reasonable.


If it was my property I would be saying exactly the same thing, as would probably you yourself despite the fact that you would probably deny it seeing as you are on the other side. That is how life works on average, or rather it is safe to be assuming that it does work that way.


You think its unfair that you should pay, the fact of the matter is the landlord is under no obligation to paint his property simply because you move out whether there is wear and tear is really rather irrelavant, to be quite frank you are the one who wore and tore it and also drilled into it.


You assume he is obligated to put up a fresh coat of paint and that is the basis your claim that you are not liable. That is just not true, I'm afraid and you cannot work under the assumption when drilling holes into walls of property you do not own, that the landlord is liable for redecoration of the enitre property because you are moving out.


If you tried to run that by me, I'd say sorry mate, that is not the way I see things I'm afraid this is my asset. The way I see it is you are being penalised should you decide to pay it, for not having it sorted out before handing back the keys and closing the books. You say the move was hasty, ok fair enough, but that doesnt quite cut it at the end of the day.


If you want to walk away, fine up to you, I can understand the desire and reasons, but the philosophical defence, its not quite good enough. Not as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that the landlord is entitled to get the property back in more-or-less the same condition that it was at the start of the lease.

No, you would not be expected to repaint an entire flat. But if you drill holes into a wall in multiple rooms, or a single room, you cannot do so based on the assumption that the landlord is obliged to give a fresh coat of paint when you leave.


They are not.


Which means as a tenant you are obliged to return the flat with the holes filled and the room looking consistent. That is how the flat was let. Beyond that is not fair wear and tear. How could it be? you purposely wore and tore it for your own convenience. It is not simply as a result of residing in the property, which would be fair.


If the tenant fails to do get whatever work needs to be done before moving out and then get hits with a bill for the filling of holes and subsequent painting of rooms where holes were drilled, the tenant is not really in a position to complain.


This business however, of the landlord talking to his wife after closing the book and then coming back with a bill sounds a little dubious to me, and the tenant should be allowed the opportunity to get the work done using their own labour and cost structure.


If when you hand your keys over to the landlord and he takes the keys and you get your deposit back, its not relevant what condition the flat is left. In business terms the transaction is complete, and really the issue should have been raised before the books closed. This is the actual position the OP is in. He can walk.


The way I see it though, you want to be reasonable and ensure the property is given back in a state that is acceptable to the landlord, even if he comes back a little later with some remorse. At the same time the landlord needs to be reasonable in terms of contracting costs and allowing the tenant to get the work done using their own vendors. Especially if he closed the book to begin with.


It seems to me that there has been on both sides, some liberties taken. The answer to your question cara, the way I see it, is that is not how I would leave the flat. I would look at it in terms of if I owned the property, how would I expect the flat to be returned and give it back that way. How it was given to me would not mean very much.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, and you are completely entitled to your view. To answer your hypothetical


Drilling a hole intentionally is different from having your sofas mark walls. One is pre meditated and a pre determined decision to induce wear and tear.


You take a drill, plug it into the socket, hold it very hard against a wall and press a trigger button for a prolonged period of time. The other occurs because you happen to move something and would probably prefer not to mark the wall given you live in the premises.


Suppose you have been charged with a crime in court, under common law, to be found guilty of the crime, the prosecution needs to prove that there was intention. If they cannot prove intention, the person cannot be found guilty. That is the law, and it is 100% based on the offenders intent.


If you move a sofa and by accident if marks the wall, there is no intention to cause a material change to the premises. When you drill a hole that is intentional. They are two different things. The way I see it, you cant go about intentionally causing damages to a premises under the assumption that the owner is obliged to return the premises to its original state.


There is normal wear and tear, and then there is drilling holes into walls. Suppose it was your property would it make you happy? If it was mine I would swallow one and not the other, and it as in law completely depends on the tenants intent when the damage was caused.