I had a clause in my tenancy contract that said I could redecorate as long as the decor was restored to its original condition at the end of the tenancy.
I painted a room near the beginning of the tenancy (walls only - as I wanted to change the colour; the rest - skirting, doors, window frames, ceiling - I didn't touch).
At the end of the tenancy, I was given a replacement colour by the landlord (as original wasn't available). I purchased paint and redecorated to a good standard.
Landlord is claiming for redecoration costs as I did not repaint the skirting boards, window frame, ceiling and doors. My argument is that as I never painted these in the first place (which is not under dispute) there was no need to return it to it's original state, as it was in that state (minus fair wear and tear).
Note that the Landlord is not questioning the quality of the paint job.
I can't see how the landlord can be right, but does anyone think otherwise?!
I painted a room near the beginning of the tenancy (walls only - as I wanted to change the colour; the rest - skirting, doors, window frames, ceiling - I didn't touch).
At the end of the tenancy, I was given a replacement colour by the landlord (as original wasn't available). I purchased paint and redecorated to a good standard.
Landlord is claiming for redecoration costs as I did not repaint the skirting boards, window frame, ceiling and doors. My argument is that as I never painted these in the first place (which is not under dispute) there was no need to return it to it's original state, as it was in that state (minus fair wear and tear).
Note that the Landlord is not questioning the quality of the paint job.
I can't see how the landlord can be right, but does anyone think otherwise?!