PDA

View Full Version : is this 'standard practice' ???...



millstone
12-12-2011, 17:54 PM
hello! my former tenants left 3 weeks ago without cleaning the house, and having done some redecoration badly & without permission. The managing agent seems friendly with the ex tenants, & has told me I should let them return to my house to clean it, rather than charge them the cost of cleaning. I am dead set against this, as I am angry that they left it in a dirty state in the first place. But the agent tells me it is standard practice to give former tenants the opportunity to return & "put things right". Is this correct, or is he telling porkies?
Any advice gratefully received!

Snorkerz
12-12-2011, 20:05 PM
Porkies - the tenants obligation is to return the property to you in the correct state at the end of the tenancy - not 3 weeks later. Once the tenancy is over they have no right to re-enter the property.

JK0
12-12-2011, 20:09 PM
Only standard practise with cowboy agents. One tried this with me. I surmise the reason was that the tenant had taken a new tenancy from the agent, and the agent had allowed him the amount of 'my' deposit as a credit against the amount the tenant would have to pay for the new place.

Thus the agent (who actually was the new landlord) did not wish to be out of pocket by the amount of deposit I claimed.

Even if you do not suspect the above shenanigans, it is not good practise to let vacated tenants back in the property, as you may find they decide to resume residence again and not pay you any rent.

mind the gap
12-12-2011, 20:37 PM
Is there no end to the hogwash spouted by some letting agents?

Yes, of course they must have a chance to put things right - but that chance is while they are tenants, not after the tenancy ends. Apart from anything else, that would assume you must suffer a void period just so they can faff about coming back to clean. Not that they would clean, however long you gave them - if they serious about cleaning it properly, they would have done it before they left or paid someone else to.

millstone
13-12-2011, 10:13 AM
thanks all for your answers, they confirm my suspicions. As a novice Landlord, it's great to have access to your experience! I have also discovered that the managing agent didn't register the ex- tenants deposit until after the tenancy had ended - due to an administrative error! I am not sure if this is influencing the agents sympathetic attitude towards the former tenants?

millstone
14-12-2011, 07:59 AM
hello everyone. turns out the agent who manages the house on my behalf didn't register the former tenants deposit until after they left (3 weeks ago).Is this a problem? The former tenants left it in a mess, and won't agree to my retaining the deposit. The agents seem desperate to avoid it going to dispute. It seems the big loser here is going to be me.....any advice gratefully received!

millstone
14-12-2011, 20:25 PM
evening all! turns out that the managing agent of my BTL property paid the deposit to me (the landlord) by mistake, having charged me a fee to register it with TDS, but didn't register it. Tenants have recently moved out, leaving a mess, & are disputing non-return of deposit. Agent actually registered deposit 1 week after tenancy ended! Is this a problem, & if so is it my problem or the agents? Any advice gratefully received!

Snorkerz
14-12-2011, 21:00 PM
Well, it is against the 2004 Housing Act - but now the tenants have left the property there isn't much they can do about it (that situation will change soon - but too late for them).

If the tenant sues you for return of the deposit, you will have to countercalim for the provable damages (allowing for fair wear and tear). I suspect the judge will look dimly on your failure to protect the deposit so you will have to make sure there are no holes in your evidence.

ram
15-12-2011, 10:30 AM
hello everyone. turns out the agent who manages the
house on my behalf didn't register the former tenants deposit until after they left
(3 weeks ago).Is this a problem? any advice gratefully received!

The question is.
Is the tenants deposit protected, and you have stated that it is, therefore I
can see no problem, at the moment.

YOU decide if you will return the deposit, not the agent, in this instance.
The agents are employed by you on your behalf.
You tell them the place was left in a mess, and will cost you to rectify,
and that is what the deposit was for.

You tel the agent that, and the must inform the deposit agent that £ x will
be retained for rectifying "the mess", and your reasons and costs for rectifying.

It is then a matter for the tenant to deny the "mess", and you to prove
( photos ).

If agent retuns deposit after they knew the deposit had to be used to clear
a mess, then sue them for theft.
You are the custodian of the tenants deposit, but the agent was acting on your
behalf to deposit the money, but you are still rsponsible for it, not the agent.

Note :-If the agent steals deposit, or goes bust, it's still the landlord who has to
pay back the money.
If you put deposit in your own bank, and the bank goes bust, and you lose your
money in the bank, you still have to pay the tenant back his deposit,
less deductions ) you cant hold the bank responsible.

R.a.M.

millstone
15-12-2011, 12:23 PM
thanks, Snorkerz! do you think I have any come back against the (useless!) managing agent for putting me in a potentially tricky position?

Snorkerz
15-12-2011, 15:32 PM
If their actions result in any financial loss to you, then yes you have a claim. Your chances of succes via the courts would depend on your ability to convince the judge that the agents actions caused the loss.

GTEC Property
17-12-2011, 09:19 AM
Agreed with the above comment, its really the incompetence of the managing agent registering the deposit late on..id use that as an arguement..just make sure you have the evidence to back you up!

millstone
17-12-2011, 10:55 AM
thanks, GTEC. The TDS scheme the agents use will have date they registered it, so I should be able to prove that. The agent has been trying to minimise the quote for cleaning/ remedial work, stressing what nice people the ex-tenants are. I suspect the agent is desperate to avoid the ex-tenants continuing to dispute - when it will be obvious that the deposit was never protected during the tenancy. So the agent is acting in their own interest, rather than mine....?

mind the gap
17-12-2011, 12:08 PM
thanks, GTEC. The TDS scheme the agents use will have date they registered it, so I should be able to prove that. The agent has been trying to minimise the quote for cleaning/ remedial work, stressing what nice people the ex-tenants are. I suspect the agent is desperate to avoid the ex-tenants continuing to dispute - when it will be obvious that the deposit was never protected during the tenancy. So the agent is acting in their own interest, rather than mine....?

Yes, sometimes it is hard to believe that the agent is working for the LL and not the tenant, isn't it?

Brb
17-12-2011, 15:04 PM
Yes, sometimes it is hard to believe that the agent is working for the LL and not the tenant, isn't it?

*cough* they don't work for the T either! (in my experience). Only themselves.

millstone
08-06-2012, 19:57 PM
Hello all! Posted similar Q in Residential, but no replies. long story short, I am LL, taking my former managing agent to court for various cock ups (including not registering the deposit).The tenants moved out leaving my property dirty & with some damage. I withheld the deposit. A month after the end of the tenancy, the agent told me to allow the former tenants back to clean (so they wouldn't have to pay for cleaning). I said no way! In the agents written defence to the court they imply that I was unreasonable as it is standard practice to allow this,& the former tenants had been willing to resolve the issue! Any ideas or arguments I can use to persuade a Judge that it is NOT standard practice? Any help would be much appreciated!

JK0
08-06-2012, 20:15 PM
This is a standard practice for dodgy agents. If they have let another property to your old tenant, they will often allow them the amount of 'your' deposit as a credit against the total they have to pay for the new place. Is it possible this has happened?

Therefore, it is in their interests to thwart you making deductions from the deposit, as they will have to make up any shortfall themselves.

Just point out that a sensible person does not give keys out to people to enter his property. What if they decided to move back in? You would have a tenant with no tenancy agreement.

millstone
08-06-2012, 20:54 PM
Thanks JKO. The agent hasn't let to the former tenant - I guess the reason they didn't want me to withold the deposit was to avoid the former tenants disputing this & discovering it had not been protected. oh what a tangled web they weave....

Snorkerz
08-06-2012, 23:30 PM
No way is it standard practice - the tenants right to enter the premises ends when the tenancy ends. If they want to enter the property, then they will have to pay rent!

westminster
09-06-2012, 20:28 PM
Hello all! Posted similar Q in Residential, but no replies.
You had plenty of replies to your previous threads.


long story short, I am LL, taking my former managing agent to court for various cock ups (including not registering the deposit).
But what loss have you suffered as a result of the agent failing to protect the deposit? No loss, no damages.


A month after the end of the tenancy, the agent told me to allow the former tenants back to clean (so they wouldn't have to pay for cleaning). I said no way!In the agents written defence to the court they imply that I was unreasonable as it is standard practice to allow this
It's not 'standard practice'. Once the tenancy is over, the T has no right to re-enter.

Moderator2
09-06-2012, 21:03 PM
Several related threads have been merged.

millstone
11-06-2012, 19:43 PM
thanks Westminster. As I said, this is a long story - now approaching court! I appreciate the replies, obviously I will need to try to convince the judge! Whilst it is not a legal right, the ex-agent claims that I was unreasonable in not allowing the former tenants to return to clean (almost a month after the end of the tenancy) , as they claim it is 'standard practice' to do so. I am worried that without proof that it is not, it is the ex-agents word against mine. So the more reasons I can find to justify not allowing them back on the property, the better. Regarding the loss, the ex-agent ignored all requests for a copy of the original inventory & the check out report - so I have not been able to pursue the former tenants for the cost of cleaning/ repairs over & above the deposit - a considerable sum.

westminster
11-06-2012, 20:54 PM
the ex-agent claims that I was unreasonable in not allowing the former tenants to return to clean (almost a month after the end of the tenancy) , as they claim it is 'standard practice' to do so. I am worried that without proof that it is not, it is the ex-agents word against mine. So the more reasons I can find to justify not allowing them back on the property, the better.
The T had no right of entry to the rental property after the tenancy ended, end of. Nothing to do with agent's word against yours.


Regarding the loss, the ex-agent ignored all requests for a copy of the original inventory & the check out report - so I have not been able to pursue the former tenants for the cost of cleaning/ repairs over & above the deposit - a considerable sum.
This is not a loss consequent on the agent's failure to protect the deposit. If you are alleging that the agent caused you to suffer a loss, you have to establish a causal link, e.g. agent didn't do X, as he was instructed to do (or he did X and he shouldn't have done), and as a result I had to pay £X or I suffered a loss of £X.

It is not a defence for the agent to say that you should have allowed the T access, a month later, to put right the damage/cleaning. The agent will have to explain why it was reasonable to ignore your requests for copies of the inventory checks (and I can't see what good explanation there might be - maybe he failed to carry out the instructions to conduct these checks, - which isn't a good explanation).