I had a lease that expired in May 2009. I got a letter from the landlord 
dated 3rd October 2009 stating that he thinks the decoration isn't up to 
scratch and will get contractors in and bill me.

Is there a time-limit beyond which I cannot be liable for such charges? 5 
months seems a little long to me - it's only a lick of paint at the end of 
the day.

Graybags

Graybags wrote:

> I had a lease that expired in May 2009. I got a letter from the landlord dated 3rd
> October 2009 stating that he thinks the decoration isn't up to scratch and will
> get contractors in and bill me.
> 
> Is there a time-limit beyond which I cannot be liable for such charges? 5 months
> seems a little long to me - it's only a lick of paint at the end of the day.
> 
> Graybags

If its only a lick of paint why domt you offer to do it

"steve robinson"  wrote in message 
news:xn0gg60lrhd2hc000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Graybags wrote:
>
>> I had a lease that expired in May 2009. I got a letter from the landlord 
>> dated 3rd
>> October 2009 stating that he thinks the decoration isn't up to scratch 
>> and will
>> get contractors in and bill me.
>>
>> Is there a time-limit beyond which I cannot be liable for such charges? 5 
>> months
>> seems a little long to me - it's only a lick of paint at the end of the 
>> day.
>>
>> Graybags
>
> If its only a lick of paint why domt you offer to do it

That's my point. It doesn't matter, but what is the correct law. Surely the 
law can be discussed here?

Graybags

Graybags wrote:

> 
> "steve robinson"  wrote in message
> news:xn0gg60lrhd2hc000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Graybags wrote:
> > 
> > > I had a lease that expired in May 2009. I got a letter from the landlord
> > > dated 3rd October 2009 stating that he thinks the decoration isn't up to
> > > scratch  and will get contractors in and bill me.
> > > 
> > > Is there a time-limit beyond which I cannot be liable for such charges? 5
> > > months seems a little long to me - it's only a lick of paint at the end of the
> > > day.
> > > 
> > > Graybags
> > 
> > If its only a lick of paint why domt you offer to do it
> 
> That's my point. It doesn't matter, but what is the correct law. Surely the law
> can be discussed here?
> 
> Graybags

If he gets contractors in your looking at £1000.00 bill unless its john wayne 

When was  the inspection done on the property is more important than when he decided
to chase you for repair costs

If its done as you leave and the work is needed to rectify any damage then he can
chase you at anythime within 6 years

If its fair wear and tear then you are not responsible 

If its taken 5 months before any report has been done then you can quite justifiably
argue that the building was ok when you left it

"steve robinson"  wrote in message 
news:xn0gg62pak97js000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Graybags wrote:
>
>>
>> "steve robinson"  wrote in message
>> news:xn0gg60lrhd2hc000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> > Graybags wrote:
>> >
>> > > I had a lease that expired in May 2009. I got a letter from the 
>> > > landlord
>> > > dated 3rd October 2009 stating that he thinks the decoration isn't up 
>> > > to
>> > > scratch  and will get contractors in and bill me.
>> > >
>> > > Is there a time-limit beyond which I cannot be liable for such 
>> > > charges? 5
>> > > months seems a little long to me - it's only a lick of paint at the 
>> > > end of the
>> > > day.
>> > >
>> > > Graybags
>> >
>> > If its only a lick of paint why domt you offer to do it
>>
>> That's my point. It doesn't matter, but what is the correct law. Surely 
>> the law
>> can be discussed here?
>>
>> Graybags
>
> If he gets contractors in your looking at £1000.00 bill unless its john 
> wayne
>
> When was  the inspection done on the property is more important than when 
> he decided
> to chase you for repair costs
>
> If its done as you leave and the work is needed to rectify any damage then 
> he can
> chase you at anythime within 6 years
>
> If its fair wear and tear then you are not responsible
>
> If its taken 5 months before any report has been done then you can quite 
> justifiably
> argue that the building was ok when you left it

He only went into the building last week for the first time.

Graybags wrote:

> 
> "steve robinson"  wrote in message
> news:xn0gg62pak97js000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Graybags wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> >>"steve robinson"  wrote in message
> > > news:xn0gg60lrhd2hc000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>> Graybags wrote:
> > > > 
> >>> > I had a lease that expired in May 2009. I got a letter from the  > > landlord
> >>> > dated 3rd October 2009 stating that he thinks the decoration isn't up  > > to
> >>> > scratch  and will get contractors in and bill me.
> >>> >
> >>> > Is there a time-limit beyond which I cannot be liable for such  > > charges?
> 5 >>> > months seems a little long to me - it's only a lick of paint at the  > >
> end of the >>> > day.
> >>> >
> >>> > Graybags
> > > > 
> >>> If its only a lick of paint why domt you offer to do it
> > > 
> > > That's my point. It doesn't matter, but what is the correct law. Surely  the
> > > law can be discussed here?
> > > 
> > > Graybags
> > 
> > If he gets contractors in your looking at £1000.00 bill unless its john  wayne
> > 
> > When was  the inspection done on the property is more important than when  he
> > decided to chase you for repair costs
> > 
> > If its done as you leave and the work is needed to rectify any damage then  he
> > can chase you at anythime within 6 years
> > 
> > If its fair wear and tear then you are not responsible
> > 
> > If its taken 5 months before any report has been done then you can quite
> > justifiably argue that the building was ok when you left it
> 
> He only went into the building last week for the first time.

More fool him then