PDA

View Full Version : End of fixed term; T believes that deposit unprotected



Maverich
01-02-2009, 13:09 PM
Hello guys,

I'm new to this website and really like the fact that everyone seems willing to help. I assume a big part or reason to use these forums are because of a problems, unfortunately i have a potential problem.

I have just come to the end of a 6 month tenancy and throughout the tenancy as far as i'm aware have been good tenants. Since we advised on moving out we have had the LL being very rude on the phone mentioning how god will look badly upon us etc etc. This come to a shock as the LL was always friendly before. Now we have moved out and handed the keys back the LL is mentioning things to us like a missing aerial wire, the grass slightly long(being winter is not best to be cutting) and also telling us how the gas needs checking. I'm concerned she is going to try and do us out of the deposit!

With looking at numerous sites and reading up on deposits i'm under the understanding that it should have been protected although we have never recieved information on this. After approching the LL asking about where it is protected she become very hesistant and said a "friend" set it up(tbh she didnt know what we was talking about)

Should i look at taking this matter further and if she hasnt protected it where do i stand?

Sorry if this has been asked before!!

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 16:03 PM
Hello guys,

I'm new to this website and really like the fact that everyone seems willing to help. I assume a big part or reason to use these forums are because of a problems, unfortunately i have a potential problem.

I have just come to the end of a 6 month tenancy and throughout the tenancy as far as i'm aware have been good tenants. Since we advised on moving out we have had the LL being very rude on the phone mentioning how god will look badly upon us etc etc. This come to a shock as the LL was always friendly before. Now we have moved out and handed the keys back the LL is mentioning things to us like a missing aerial wire, the grass slightly long(being winter is not best to be cutting) and also telling us how the gas needs checking. I'm concerned she is going to try and do us out of the deposit!

With looking at numerous sites and reading up on deposits i'm under the understanding that it should have been protected although we have never recieved information on this. After approching the LL asking about where it is protected she become very hesistant and said a "friend" set it up(tbh she didnt know what we was talking about)

Should i look at taking this matter further and if she hasnt protected it where do i stand?

Sorry if this has been asked before!!


Your LL is being understandably nervous because she, too, may have just realised that she should have protected your deposit in a scheme (but did not). The penalty for this is that you can sue her for your original deposit back, plus 3x its value, so I can see why she is turning to religion, albeit a little misguidedly.

Of the things you mention as being possible 'deductions' from your deposit, only the aerial lead is a valid one (assuming it was on the inventory to begin with, but has been lost/broken by yourselves). By 'the gas needs checking' I take it she means that the meter needs reading - isn't the bill in your name anyway? That should not concern her. If she means that the gas supply/ appliances need checking, then that is her legal responsibility - she cannot charge you for it.

OK...write her a letter headed Letter Before Action. Tell her that unless she refunds your deposit in full within 7 days from date of letter, she will leave you with no option but to sue her for the deposit itself plus 3x the deposit, since it has come to your attention that she has failed to protect your deposit in a government approved scheme or supply you with the details of same, within 14 days of receiving your money. Send your letter by recorded delivery or by hand with a witness who can prove she recieved it.

This letter should focus her mind wonderfully and if I were the gambling sort (which I am not), I would put a few bob on the prospect of her returning your deposit in full, grumpily, by your deadline. She probably knows that she has made a big mistake here which could cost her dear.

When she has done so, you may like to engage her in the thorny theological question of whether God is merciful (as opposed to vengeful)...if you feel you want to ;)..or you might just want to cut and run!

Good luck - get back to us if you need any more help.

Ericthelobster
01-02-2009, 17:21 PM
OK...write her a letter headed Letter Before Action.Blimey, hold your horses a bit! The tenancy has apparently only 'just' ended, and so far the LL has not said she's going to withold anything from the deposit - I don't think it's really appropriate to be threatening court action quite so quickly...:eek:

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 17:40 PM
Blimey, hold your horses a bit! The tenancy has apparently only 'just' ended, and so far the LL has not said she's going to withold anything from the deposit - I don't think it's really appropriate to be threatening court action quite so quickly...:eek:

Fair comment - Maverich, I take it you have asked your LL for your deposit back? What was her response? And how long is it since you moved out?

Revised plan of action if not already attempted :

1). Ask in writing/by email for the return of your deposit. Point out this should be done within 10 days of the end of the tenancy, unless there is a dispute over any proprosed deductions, in which case she should advise the protection scheme, and you, of the details

2).If she does not respond to 1) either by refunding your depsoit or notifying you about the scheme into which she has put the money, then write the letter as advised above.

Preston
01-02-2009, 19:28 PM
When she has done so, you may like to engage her in the thorny theological question of whether God is merciful (as opposed to vengeful)...if you feel you want to ;)..or you might just want to cut and run!


Hi

It would actually be quite gratifying to find out that God takes a personal interest in landlord and tenant issues. I wonder whether he would be willing to resolve a few of the more contentious issues we occasionally grapple with on this site.

Preston

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 19:55 PM
Hi

It would actually be quite gratifying to find out that God takes a personal interest in landlord and tenant issues. I wonder whether he would be willing to resolve a few of the more contentious issues we occasionally grapple with on this site.

Preston

Ha! How can we know? It would be reassuring to think that the laws of the land are derived from some kind of moral law, at least. Perhaps people would care to suggest religious tenets of specific use to landlords and tenants. A couple to start you off : Do unto others as you would have others do unto you (in other words, provide some decent heating for the poor blighters living in your property), and :'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (always pay your rent, and replace the TV remote control when you tread on it and break it).

In fact, you could do a lot worse than the Ten Commandments (well, not all of them are strictly applicable to LLs and Ts but 'Thou shalt not steal' seems particularly relevant. And even, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ox' Ox = deposit/washing machine, whatever).

Preston
01-02-2009, 20:20 PM
Ha! How can we know? It would be reassuring to think that the laws of the land are derived from some kind of moral law, at least. Perhaps people would care to suggest religious tenets of specific use to landlords and tenants. A couple to start you off : Do unto others as you would have others do unto you (in other words, provide some decent heating for the poor blighters living in your property), and :'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (always pay your rent, and replace the TV remote control when you tread on it and break it).

In fact, you could do a lot worse than the Ten Commandments (well, not all of them are strictly applicable to LLs and Ts but 'Thou shalt not steal' seems particularly relevant.

Judging by the tenor of many of the posts on this site, I think "an eye for an eye" would be quite popular. Example: tenant's heating goes off, not fixed quickly; tenant entitled to switch off heating in landlord's own home for an equivalent period. Another example: tenant late with rent payment; landlord entitled to freeze equivalent sum in tenant's bank account for the same period.

I think we have some more chapters for the Landlord and Tenant (Really Useful Stuff) Act.

Preston

jeffrey
01-02-2009, 20:53 PM
"an eye for an eye"
BIBLICAL NOTE: In fact, this mistranslated phrase means precisely what English law would seek: fair compensation, whether for personal injury (loss of eye) or, as here, loss of property's availability. It does not mean- and never did mean- the physical infliction of equal mutiliation etc. (or what the Romans called Lex Talionis).

The error arose from misunderstanding of the Hebrew word "tachas": literally 'under' but meaning 'by way of compensation in monetary terms'.

jeffrey
01-02-2009, 20:56 PM
But 'An eye for an eye' is not a principle by which any religion bids us act...
True, so see my last post.

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 20:58 PM
Sorry Jefrrey, our posts crossed. Yours is the more erudite, as usual!

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 21:01 PM
But 'An eye for an eye' to take its literal meaning is not a principle by which any religion bids us act...

...because in its New Testament context the full phrase is something like :

'You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth...but I say to you, turn the other cheek'

I will check chapter and verse. Here it is:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

Poor Maverich is probably wondering what on earth he has let himself in for, posting his innocent question, only to be bombarded with theology!

jeffrey
01-02-2009, 21:14 PM
Here it is:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

Poor Maverich is probably wondering what on earth he has let himself in for, posting his innocent question, only to be bombarded with theology!
The phrase appears in the Five Books of Moses (Pentateuch), way before your source!
See Exodus 21: 23-27 AND (more recently) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye, of which an extract appears below.

Lex talionis in Judaism

The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" — which underlies many modern legal codes.

Preston
01-02-2009, 21:16 PM
Here it is:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

Poor Maverich is probably wondering what on earth he has let himself in for, posting his innocent question, only to be bombarded with theology!

Yes, but the Old Testament is always more bloodthirsty.

Deuteronomy 19:21:

"And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."


BIBLICAL NOTE: In fact, this mistranslated phrase means precisely what English law would seek: fair compensation, whether for personal injury (loss of eye) or, as here, loss of property's availability. It does not mean- and never did mean- the physical infliction of equal mutiliation etc. (or what the Romans called Lex Talionis).

The error arose from misunderstanding of the Hebrew word "tachas": literally 'under' but meaning 'by way of compensation in monetary terms'.


True and of course neither was I serious when I suggested that God might take a more direct interest in landlord and tenant issues.

But as an example of "modern thinking" on the subject (restorative justice and all that) I quite like the idea of "compulsory empathy orders" allowing, say, a tenant to switch a landlord's heating off.

Anyway, despite the efforts of many devout and theologically educated people, I know very little about religion of any kind, so I am sure that whatever I say on the subject will be wrong.

jeffrey
01-02-2009, 21:20 PM
"Bloodthirsty"? Not so.

Preston
01-02-2009, 21:29 PM
"Bloodthirsty"? Not so.

So, how about:


Noah flees the flood (but most don't make it)
David and Goliath battle it out (eyes played a big part in that one if I remember rightly)
A whale munches Jonah up alive (always made me heave as a child, that one)
Moses makes a great escape (but his pursuers don't)
Sodom and Gomorra (well, at least they had a good time before they met their inevitable fate)

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 21:31 PM
The phrase appears in the Five Books of Moses (Pentateuch), way before your source!

Yuh, I know. I didn't mean that the NT version was the original. It's obvious, innit. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to say 'You have heard that it was said', would they?

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 21:35 PM
True and of course neither was I serious when I suggested that God might take a more direct interest in landlord and tenant issues.

But as an example of "modern thinking" on the subject (restorative justice and all that) I quite like the idea of "compulsory empathy orders" allowing, say, a tenant to switch a landlord's heating off.

What kind of restorative justice would you recommend for a tenant who melts the carpet by ironing on it and leaves pint glasses of urine on her windowsill when she moves out?!

jeffrey
01-02-2009, 21:39 PM
1. Noah flees the flood (but most don't make it)
2. David and Goliath battle it out (eyes played a big part in that one if I remember rightly)
3. A whale munches Jonah up alive (always made me heave as a child, that one)
4. Moses makes a great escape (but his pursuers don't)
5. Sodom and Gomorra (well, at least they had a good time before they met their inevitable fate)
1. They had a chance to repent but didn't.
2. Goliath started it. David won a fight in self-defence against a much larger opponent.
3. Not a whale but a fish (albeit big); and Jonah survived anyway.
4. The opressed were freed after 210yrs. of harsh enslavement.
5. As in no.1.

Preston
01-02-2009, 21:41 PM
What kind of restorative justice would you recommend for a tenant who melts the carpet by ironing on it

Knit you a new one?


and leaves pint glasses of urine on her windowsill when she moves out?!

I knew a tenant who did that, only it was in a sink. Never did figure out why he didn't pull the plug out.

And yes, you are proving the shortcomings with my theory.

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 21:47 PM
4. The opressed were freed after 210yrs. of harsh enslavement.

So there's hope for me yet?

jeffrey
01-02-2009, 21:49 PM
Restorative justice? Try this, instead of the expensive farce of imprisonment.

To rectify a convicted offender (A) with acquired lack of regard for others, in (for instance) theft of other's property, teach him/her [say 'him', as that's more frequent] the error of his ways by requiring him to compensate the victim (B) direct. If A has to work as an forced employee -servant, not slave- of B for up to six years, living in B's home and repaying the debt by value of work for B, the ethic of normality in a stable home should lead to a new and better attitude in A. See it as an adult's apprenticeship to a decent and law-abiding family, likely far more successfully stable than A's own. No cost to taxpayers, and it results in rehabilitation.

That's precisely what the Pentateuch demands. Not so bloodthirsty after all, eh?

Preston
01-02-2009, 21:50 PM
1. They had a chance to repent but didn't.
2. Goliath started it. David won a fight in self-defence against a much larger opponent.
3. Not a whale but a fish (albeit big); and Jonah survived anyway.
4. The opressed were freed after 210yrs. of harsh enslavement.
5. As in no.1.

Ok, so might a less bloodthirsty God have:

1. given everyone a place in a boat, but made the sinners sit outside
2. given David the charisma to persuade Goliath that he had been wrong all along
3. given the fish a break - that must have hurt
4. set up a peace commission
5. been a bit more clear on what we are all allowed to enjoy and what not?

Anyway, as I said, I know nothing.

jeffrey
01-02-2009, 21:58 PM
On point 5, the main crime of Sodom and Gomorrah (OK, besides the obvious) was cruelty to- and failure to offer hospitality to- strangers. 'Gated communities' of their day? "No immigrants here"? Human nature doesn't change much, does it?

Preston
01-02-2009, 22:06 PM
On point 5, the main crime of Sodom and Gomorrah (OK, besides the obvious) was cruelty to- and failure to offer hospitality to- strangers. 'Gated communities' of their day? "No immigrants here"? Human nature doesn't change much, does it?

True. I must admit to some unease about the current "British jobs for British workers" debate. I sympathise, but I'm not sure the isolationist response is appropriate. And my biggest fear from the credit crunch (apart from personal bankruptcy) is the social impact it may have. The ingredients for evil are frighteningly banal.

mind the gap
01-02-2009, 22:11 PM
I remember using the public toilets at the US Port Authority building near Battery Park, Manhattan about 5 years ago. Someone had written with a black marker "god is great". Some one had crossed it out and put "there is no god". Following this was a very interesting theological debate that had some thought put into it by its participants (although with generally bad spelling) that had obviously been added to over time.

Made oi larf....

Yes, graffitti is fascinating stuff, isn't it. And not just in toilets, although they do seem to bring out the best and the worst of writers on walls. A colleague of mine collected and compared grafitti from male and female toilets and found to her surprise that the women were responsible for greater irreverence and suggestiveness, stronger language and worse spelling than the men.

Maverich
02-02-2009, 08:48 AM
Hello ppl,

Well all your posts make for interesting reading! Actually made me laugh this snowy morning sitting here at work.

To answer the question many posts ago,

I have contacted the LL about the deposit but they seem to be postponing it until she has had the gas checked and the garden, although we did move out a week ago now so surely this should have been done some time ago. In terms of the aerial wire, there was never an inventory done when we moved in and i'm sure that when we had virgin media installed they took it down (cant remember).

Sorry to get the post back onto topic.

toys19
02-02-2009, 09:55 AM
The landlord appears to have broken the law already
1) When it was put into a TDS he has to notfiy you within 14 days of receipt of the deposits who has custody and how to claim etc, the TDS schemes normally provide all this paperwork...
2) Deposit must be returned within 10 days of tenancy ending, or they must notify TDS that there is a dispute.

If the landlord has not protected the deposit they can be ordered to repay you three times the deposit.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TenancyDeposit/DG_066373

The TDS was put in place to stop this kind of stuff from happening.

jta
02-02-2009, 10:06 AM
Interesting stuff as usual. Would the current practice in Islamic Law of accepting 'blood money' from the perpetrators of a crime be based on the same 'eye for an eye' philosophy?
I'm not a theologian, but there seems a distinct connection.

Ericthelobster
02-02-2009, 11:32 AM
To rectify a convicted offender (A) with acquired lack of regard for others, in (for instance) theft of other's property, teach him/her [say 'him', as that's more frequent] the error of his ways by requiring him to compensate the victim (B) direct. If A has to work as an forced employee -servant, not slave- of B for up to six years, living in B's homeBlimey; so if I get mugged I get to have the culprit living in my spare room and cooking my dinner for me? Think I'll stick with the status quo if it's all the same to you...:eek:

jeffrey
02-02-2009, 11:34 AM
Conversely: rather than culprit 'paying debt to society', let him pay debt to the victim!

mind the gap
02-02-2009, 12:02 PM
I'm with Eric on this one. I would prefer not to share my house with all the people who have stolen from me/kicked my car/verbally abused me over the years. There'd be half of Thatcher's government in there for a start. Plus various pimply youths - and I can't be doing with acne over the breakfast table. And think of the queue for the shower.

I would prefer them to repay their debt to me by picking up litter and scraping chewing gum off the pavements of our city centres.