PDA

View Full Version : Protecting Deposit After Tenant Has Moved Out - Naive Landlord Error



EViS
28-09-2011, 16:34 PM
A landlord friend who has just go into the property game has had his first tenant's move out. Despite a number of reminders from me, he did not protect their deposit. Now that his tenants have moved out, he has had to retain a fair amount of their deposit for damage they caused to the property.

The tenants are contesting the charges and he is now worried about not having protected their deposit.

Would it be too late for him to protect the deposit now that they have moved out and after he has advised them (in writing) of the various charges for damage?

I would like to tell him "I warned you", but he's a good guy with a heart in the right place, so I want to help him out.

westminster
28-09-2011, 17:09 PM
If the tenancy has lawfully ended, then your friend has nothing to fear in terms of a claim by the tenant for not protecting the deposit. A court of appeal judgment earlier this year established that the T has no claim after the tenancy has ended.*



* Though it appears that the law is going to be changed fairly shortly, albeit I doubt the changes would be applied retrospectively.

EViS
28-09-2011, 17:44 PM
Oh, that's even news to my ears! Do you have any more information as to where this law is written please westminster?

And when you say "lawfully ended", do you mean that the AST has finished (which it has)?

EDIT: A quick google search brought this up (http://www.student-rooms.co.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection-bites-the-dust/). Looks like he has nothing to worry about then. I shall give the worrying bugger a quick call now and hope he treats this as a lesson for the future :).

Snorkerz
28-09-2011, 20:01 PM
The tenants could still sue for the return of their deposit. Could your friend successfully counterclaim for the damages he alleges - ie does he have proof that any 'damaged' item was not damaged at the start of the tenancy, and if he has that proof, has he charged the tenants an appropriate amount to take into account 'fair wear and tear'?

westminster
28-09-2011, 23:52 PM
Oh, that's even news to my ears! Do you have any more information as to where this law is written please westminster?
You answered this yourself with your edit - Gladehurst v Hashemi.



And when you say "lawfully ended", do you mean that the AST has finished (which it has)?
I mean ended in one of the various lawful ways a tenancy may end, such as a T vacating at fixed term expiry, or serving notice to quit under a break clause or during a periodic tenancy; or a mutually agreed surrender; or LL obtaining and executing a possession order.

If the tenancy were not lawfully ended (e.g. LL illegally evicted the T) then the T would still have a claim for deposit non-compliance even after the tenancy had 'ended'.