Landlord claims over £70,000 for damages done by popstar star Tulisa Contostavlos

Thanks to an inventory check-in and check-out report, a landlord in North London was able to provide sufficient evidence for their claim against former N-Dubz star and X Factor judge Tulisa Contostavlos.

Landlord Andrew Charalambous was paid over £70,000 for damages after it was heard that the luxury home had been ‘trashed’ during her tenancy.

The landlord claimed the three-bedroom property, located in Enfield and costing £3,466 per month to rent, was let in ‘tip-top condition’ but returned to him in an ‘appalling’ and ‘unlettable’ state.

The reported damage carried out between September 2014 and July 2016 included:

• A smashed sink
• Cigarette burns
• Stains
• Doors ripped from hinges

Contostavlos’ lawyer argued that the damage was not caused by her and that it was not above ‘normal wear and tear’. However, judge David Saunders ruled against her and she was ordered to pay compensation, interest and legal costs in excess of £70,000 to Charalambous.

The inventory report that provided this evidence was undertaken by Mitchel Walters, the owner of No Letting Go’s Barnet and Enfield franchise. It deals with many high-end properties in the capital.

The landlord has described the inventory work carried out at the property as ‘excellent’.

Mitchell Walters comments: “We were pleased to be able to contribute towards helping the landlord win compensation in his case against the former tenant as the property was treated very poorly and would have cost him thousands to renovate and repair. Our inventory reporting helped to demonstrate its pristine condition at the start of the tenancy.

“Hopefully the high-profile nature of this case will help to remind landlords and letting agents about the potential financial implications of property damage if they don’t have professional and comprehensive measures in place.”

Nick Lyons, CEO and Founder of No Letting Go, adds: “We can see from this case the importance of an independently and professionally compiled inventory.

“It’s clear that the type of damage being reported was certainly not wear and tear, but when serious disputes between landlords and tenants like this occur, being able to prove it through evidence becomes crucial if landlords want to recover costs for repairs and replacements.

“This case also shows that it doesn’t matter whether a rental property is at the very top or bottom end of the market, landlords and letting agents need to follow the same procedures when it comes to documenting its condition before, during and after a tenancy if they won’t ensure they are protected against damage.”