Wednesday, March 31, 2021
Home Breaking News Tenants smeared a detached house with a confusing amount of “art” -...
- Advertisement -

Tenants smeared a detached house with a confusing amount of “art” – covering these images cost almost 100,000 euros – Taloussanomat


Heat was obtained in the rooms by heated stove stones and stolen electricity.

Just renovated the detached house underwent a complete surface renovation in the wake of the tenants.

Almost 100,000 euros were presented in court for damages to the apartment. The tenants were ordered to pay the owner and the insurance company more than 90,000 euros with their legal costs.

The owner renovated his house in Lahti for a couple of years before renting it out. The tenants were men and women born in the 1980s.

Residents brought their moving load in February 2018. The lease had been for one year and there was no need to discuss its renewal.

- Advertisement -

Residents had been advised by their landlord not to paint the places. As is often the case, the advice was not heeded.

The paint had also stained the floor.­

The inner door had gotten a new color to the surface.­

Less than a year during which residents destroyed interiors with paint and tape and by breaking places and furniture.

The electric batteries had been torn from the walls and the ends of the cables were sticking out of place. Paint had been applied to the surface of the radiators. They could not be used later due to the risk of fire.

There were colorful paintings and patterns made by the tenants everywhere. The rooms reminded me of a civic college spring exhibition.

Paintings and tapes were also used on stoves and washing machines. There were splashes of paint on the floors, walls and doors. Lots of small holes had appeared in the walls.

The radiator was painted and removed.­

There was a big hole in the kitchen wall.­

The color of the tiles in the wet rooms was not to the liking of the tenants. Strong plastic films had been drawn over the tiles, the surface of which mimicked gloomy brick patterns.

The woman admitted paintings and tapes, but in his view it was a matter of decorating in the spirit of the times and not of cluttering places. The tapes put on the window frames were removed, but at the same time the paint left.

A big hole had appeared in the kitchen wall. It was about ventilation ducts, although the house had a ventilation system, but its occupants had disabled it.

When the electric bills went unpaid, the electrically heated house got colder.

Residents found several alternative forms of heating for which it would be pointless to apply to the state for energy subsidies for detached houses.

The electric cable was pulled from the outside and electricity was taken past the power plant to the peak of the city power plant. The cable ran along the floor and, when heated, was likely to damage the surfaces. The floors had also been damaged by tobacco.

The radiator cord was cut apart in addition to painting.­

Art in the bathroom cabinet door.­

The cable was connected to radiators to bring heat to the apartment. Because of the cable, a large notch had to be punched in the threshold of the front door as the cable ran out the door. More locking tunings had also been put in the door. Electric batteries were also powered from batteries, which were carried from room to room.

About heating solutions most especially concerned with electric heater stones. The sauna stove had become unnecessary due to the power cut, but the stones had to be reused. The stones had been heated outside and brought indoors to give warmth. The hot stones had damaged the floors.

The man opened the court for heating solutions. He stated that heat had to be supplied to the cold house and it was a state of urgency that justified the procedure because the electricity contract had been terminated due to unpaid bills.

The toilet furniture was not allowed to be quiet either. There were holes in the tiles, the lid of the barn had got patterns, the sauna had been broken and there were holes in the tiles in the washroom.

The mineral tiles on the façade of the house had been broken and texts and paintings had been woven into the plinth.

The couple admitted in court that they had made changes to the apartment, but the woman denied that the owner’s property had been intentionally damaged. He admitted that the owner had not been asked for permission to paint, and acknowledged that he was liable for the paintings. The man admitted guilty of the damage.

Both the wall and the radiator had been painted.­

The inner surface of the lower exterior door was completely painted.­

Smoking was forbidden in the apartment, but the tumps were everywhere and the roof was yellowed. According to the woman, they had smoked only on the day of the move.

Päijät-Häme the district court’s view was that the couple had caused all the damage intentionally.

The court held that residents over the age of 30 had to understand that their way of using the dwelling damaged it and was not a matter of normal wear and tear.

The district court did not suspect the house owner’s estimate of nearly 100,000 euros in repair costs.

In addition to the paintings, there were holes and screws in the walls of the bedroom.­

In one of the bedrooms both the walls and the window moldings were painted.­

The court ordered the couple to jointly and severally pay the costs reimbursed by the insurance company for almost EUR 61,500 and the owner about EUR 27,000 in damages. The couple has to pay the insurance company and the owner legal costs of about 4,500 euros.

According to the prosecutor, the damage was so significant that it was a serious offense. The District Court assessed the act as a basic form of damages because it involved a number of acts that were relatively minor on their own but, taken as a whole, showed indifference to the property of another.

The couple received the sentences on Monday. The man was sentenced to a total of about 25 different crimes to 11 months in absolute prison. The woman was sentenced to 11 months in prison. He committed about 20 different crimes.

Both the man and the woman got their own legal costs in full at the peak of the state. The amount is about 9,000 euros. The judgment of the district court is not yet final.



Source site www.is.fi

- Advertisement -
RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments

- Advertisement -