Landlord wanting T's deposit

[sensible]

Hello and Good Morning People,

I would apprreciate some advise on the following scenario.

Right then, T signed 6 months AST. After the initial 6 months he signed another 6 months AST. " months into new AST he decides he needs to leave the country for good.

We negotiated that T can leave as long as he pays the re-let fee and rent up until the date a new T moves into the property (we will re-advertise the property in the meantime). L was happy with this scenario and so was T.

T left a few days later than diarised (but has agreed to pay the extra few days rent), L decided he doesnt want to relet and wants to live in the property himself. On check out the property was left in a good state, no cleaner or dirtier than at check in (i have pics) however T did leave oranments, picture frames (with paintings) and various other things that one would generally buy for a home anyway. L was happy with everything left and stated he would need to buy these items anyway so i asked him to sign a disclaimer stating we can return T deposit in full, which he did.

A day later L called stating he is now not happy with the items left as he has been speaking to his mother! He now wants said items removed. So he placed them at the side of the property and i arranged removal. L now wants the full deposit (£725) as T left early.

T has been in contact, he has agreed to pay the extra few days rent only and would like the rest of his deposit back on the basis that property has not been relet and L has moved in instead so he has not actually suffered any loss.

Both parties have got 'representatives' involved and both parties are accusing me of taking the others side.

In liu of above what is the right thing to do? (right thing that is, not moral thing). Also bare in mind that L never carried out any repairs throughout AST even after my S11 letters.

Any advice/comments appreciated.

[Poppy35]

as a LA i think you have done all you can.

Is the deposit protected? If so I suggest you let the L and T decide to take it to dispute and let the ICE make the decision.

The landlord should not of disposed of the tenants goods - he has a legal obligation to keep them (for at least 6 weeks I believe but not too sure?)

He has mitigated his losses by moving into the property and I am pretty sure the ICE would aware the deposit back to the tenant esp as you have the signed disclaimer etc from him.

What would of happened if you had authorised the deposit refund to the tenant the same day the landlord signed the disclaimer?

I would try and get the landlord to understand that by moving back in he is not at a loss and providing the tenant pays a goodwill gesture for leaving early suggest thats the end of the matter.

We get accused of siding with tenants sometimes but its when the landlord is being unreasonable and trying to get monies from the deposit that they are not entitled to.

[sensible]

Sorry i forgot to add, L has got his mum involved.

[Poppy35]

and.........

is she very scary?? :)

[sensible]

and.........

is she very scary?? :)

Oh yes, screaming, finger pointing the works....

[sensible]

Sorry Poppy35 i didn't reply to your post

The deposit is protected. I have advised T to contact deposit dispute service but it has seem to fallen on deaf ears.

L did not dispose of T goods, he placed them at the side of the property, it rained hence good ruined. I disposed of them as L wanted to hire a skip and charge T for it + add another £250 for his inconvenience.

I have thought of telling the landlord that he will get a small amount for his inconvenience (£50) and a few days rent owed to him then wave disclaimer however i don't want to land myself with a court case (time i don't have)

I can get through to the landlord easily, however his mother and his representative are a real pain. Typical well spoken textbook type people.

[sensible]

Sorry to be a pain but this is the very first time i'm having to advise going to the ADR.

Would it be best for me to send a letter to T asking them to contact ADR along with another copy of their deposit cert? At the same time send a letter to L stating what i have advised T and that we shall be holding onto deposit up until ADR resolve this issue.

Again any advice/comments appreciated.

[Esio Trot]

Would it be best for me to send a letter to T asking them to contact ADR along with another copy of their deposit cert? At the same time send a letter to L stating what i have advised T and that we shall be holding onto deposit up until ADR resolve this issue.

The first thing to remember, like the landlord wanting money if he hired a skip for his "inconvenience", every time you answer a phone call, or do anything it is costing you time. Time means money, and you are not earning anything out of this.

Firstly, only deal with the named parties, unless the party supplies you with a fully completed and witnessed Power of Attorney naming the person you are to deal with.

Secondly, don't do anything at all. The deposit is held by DPS - thus all you need to ensure is that you have given each party details of pursuing their respective claim.

Even if you held the deposit under one of the two insurance based schemes, then if they can't agree you again lodge the disputed amount with the relevant scheme and let the landlord and tenant sort it out.

As a general comment, I thought that when DP came in, it would make life easier. It hasn't, even though we have check-in and check-out inventories. Tenants always moan if the clerk says anything is dirty - they nearly always claim that it was just as bad when they moved in! Had one lass who didn't defrost and unplug the fridge/freezer (despite it being this way when she occupied) as she was "too busy packing", taking umbridge with us having to send a cleaner to do the same and who charged £50.

We use an insurance-based scheme and now take a strong line which is that we won't discuss the clerk's report. If they want to dispute, then we will ensure that more than sufficient is lodged to cover outstanding items. We also tell them that we do not use ADR, and will only use the small claims court. This concentrates the minds of most tenants, and we have (till now) always managed to agree deductions, if any.

[sensible]

Thanks for the advice peeps.

I have sent T a letter along with copy of dep cert asking them to contact ADR. I have sent L a letter telling him that T are possibly going to raise a dispute so we will keep deposit until we get the results of ADR.

[Esio Trot]

I have sent T a letter along with copy of dep cert asking them to contact ADR. I have sent L a letter telling him that T are possibly going to raise a dispute so we will keep deposit until we get the results of ADR.

But you can't do this.

If YOU are holding the deposit under one of the two insurance schemes, then once a dispute is lodged then you have to forward to the relevant scheme the deposit, or the portion of which is under dispute.

If it is held already by DPS, then there is nothing for you to do at all - they hold it anyway.

[sensible]

But you can't do this.

If YOU are holding the deposit under one of the two insurance schemes, then once a dispute is lodged then you have to forward to the relevant scheme the deposit, or the portion of which is under dispute.

If it is held already by DPS, then there is nothing for you to do at all - they hold it anyway.

Correct, we are using mydeposits so at stage three we will transfer the monies disputed to them for them to apportion how they see fit.

In fact i will now amend the letter i'm sending to T & L to reflect this.

Thanks for pointing that out Esio, as i mentioned first time dispute.

[sensible]

Update....

L came into office along with his rep who claims he is a housing pracitioner and has been for over 20 years, works for a massive housing firm, big contracts, the whole i know the law outfit.

He admitted that L can't claim for lost rent as he has moved into the property. However Mr Rep claimed that because T moved out 5 days later than was agreed. Rather than the 5 days rent due to L we should charge a full months rent to Ts deposit. This is based on rent being payable pcm rather than daily (in Mr Reps words)

We have always charged Ts' rent up until the point we recieve keys, Ts' usually have a slight moan but accept the charge and get on with life. However i think that deducting a whole months rent from a deposit just because T has gove over by a few days is absurd.

Does housing act/law state that L can charge T a full months rent just because they go over by a few days?

[Esio Trot]

We have always charged Ts' rent up until the point we recieve keys, Ts' usually have a slight moan but accept the charge and get on with life. However i think that deducting a whole months rent from a deposit just because T has gove over by a few days is absurd.

Does housing act/law state that L can charge T a full months rent just because they go over by a few days?

Tenants might be miffed, but it is definitely the law. If they don't part with possession by midnight of the last day of a period, then they are due to pay rent in lieu of notice.

It can get quite expensive for them if they fall outside the dates prescribed. Lets assume they are on a monthly tenancy starting on 1st of each month, they gave notice the previous month but did not part with possession until, say, the 10th of the next. Notice can only be given to take effect on the last day of the period, and must be given at least 28 days before and in writing . Even in a 31 day month, there are fewer than 28 days to the end of the period. In this case then they are liable for rent to the end of the period PLUS 28 days in lieu of notice - a total of around 7 weeks rent over and above the overstayed 10 days!

It comes down to section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-statutes/statutes/protection-from-eviction-act-1977.html).

This was strengthened by the Laine -v- Cadwallader (http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Housn20002000.php) case in 2000 (the report is about halfway down the link). Another shorter link is on Letlink (http://www.letlink.co.uk/case-law/abandonment/laine-and-mitchell-v-cadwallader-cadwallader-2001.html).

If the tenants have been snotty, then we use the law as it stands. If the tenants have been okay then we point out the law and the landlords entitlement, but only charge a daily rate.

[Poppy35]

but surely if the landlord moved in on the 6th day then he has not lost rent and thus cant charge the outgoing for the whole month??

[Esio Trot]

but surely if the landlord moved in on the 6th day then he has not lost rent and thus cant charge the outgoing for the whole month??
Morally no.

Legally, I see no qualifications in the law or the later case that allows for reductions due to anything like the above happening.

However, it's the same as a landlord getting double rent when a place is re-let and occupied during the period when a previous tenant has paid rent in advance. I don't 'think' it is legal, but have never seen anything to say that it is anything other than morally wrong.