I posted this a couple of days ago, but probably in the wrong place!!
Any advice would be greatly recieved, thanks? J.
Hi,
I have lived in my current rental property for over 20 years and we have finally decided to move.
Our agency did a walkthrough last week and I expected to have to fill holes and do a freshen up, but I was flabbergasted when they said I had to re-vitrify the parquet.
The rental agreement I originally signed said nothing other than keeping the appratment cleen and well maintained. During my tennancy the appartment has been sold several times and been administered by various different agencies, all without visits ever being made!
The parquet is clean and in good general repair (not bad at all for 20years use), there is of course some fading on the most used areas, but surely this counts as normal wear and tear based on the length of time I have been here?
Any advice greatly appreciated.
(oh the owner wants to sell empty, could this be a ploy to have the work done to increase her profit on the proerty?).
Dear Jacqui,
I have noticed that no reply has been provided to your enquiry and I hope this is not too late to reply.
The tenant’s duties are regulated by a decree dated 26th August 1987 including a list of repairs for which the tenant is liable.
The decree provides that “the tenant’s repairs include routine maintenance and minors repairs comprising the replacement of elements of equipment assimilated to the said repairs resulting from the normal use of the private spaces and elements of equipment in the property”.
The decree also specifically includes the following clause:
“Wooden floors, carpets and other floor covering:
Polishing and maintenance of vitrification;
Replacing a few blades of the wooden floor and minor repair, replacement of carpet parts and other floor covering, especially in case of stains and holes”.
However, the enforcement of such obligation by the tenant can be waived if the replacement is carried out following the normal wear and tear resulting from a normal use of the property. It is therefore a question for the landlord to evidence that the damage to the wooden floor is not resulting from normal wear and tear.
When entering the property an inventory may have been carried out. This inventory would then be compared to the inventory carried out at the latest on the date you are vacating the property. In that respect, it may be quite difficult for the landlord to evidence that the damage on the wooden floor is not resulting from a normal use of the property.
If no inventory was carried out when entering the property, the state of the property should be interpreted as being in a state that would be favourable to the tenant.
As a consequence, unless the inventories provide evidence to the contrary, you should not be expected to be liable for the revitrification of the wooden floor. A letter (lettre recommandée avec demande d’avis de reception) to the estate agent refusing to be liable for such expense should be sufficient.
I hope this helps.