Deposit cock up with tenancy , am I screwed?
Discussion
Blaster72 said:
Mandalore said:
CABC said:
I understand it's been 5 years and the person maybe old, but the presumption by some posters that a contract is worthless is pathetic.
I too would say, on balance, move on. Just don't take posters above as tenants.
This^^I too would say, on balance, move on. Just don't take posters above as tenants.
Take the hit and use the experience to hold them to contract next time.
And just be thankful it was an old lady this timeand not some utter cretin who thinks him/herself better that everyone else and beyond social norms.
I agree the tenant should have made sure the kitchen was professionally cleaned if they couldn't do it themselves and recompense the landlord for any damaged blinds but the landlord is running a business and needs to be more careful.
You can't hold someone to contract when you've not made the effort to make sure you're within the law yourself.
You honestly think he shouldn't return the entire deposit and move on to the next tenant?
Im struggling to equate how you think he can?
Sounds like the OP has decided to do the right thing and give back all the deposit but I would advise handling the son with a pair of kid gloves. Sounds like he's already got a sniff that things might not be entirely water tight when it comes to the deposit and whether or not it was in an approved scheme. This is certainly a lesson and a reminder but don't be at all surprised if the son comes after you even if you do give all the deposit back.
Fingers crossed!
Fingers crossed!
The law changed on requiring deposits to be protected 10 years ago. So five years before you took on this tenant. If you can't keep your business operating within the legislation you should sell up right now, before you get yourself in serious trouble. Do you bother with gas checks I wonder?
There are supposedly punishments for landlord's not complying with protecting deposits, and I had to go through this myself from the tenant's perspective not long after the legislation changed. My landlord made a whole load of unreasonable deductions (as used to happen all time beforehand). I fought it, both on the grounds that they failed to protect the deposit, and that the deductions were unreasonable anyway. I took it through the small claims process, and after a comical u turn from the judge, he decided that the landlord wasn't in breach of the housing act because the tenancy had now ended (his interpretation of the act), so he judged that there was no case to answer and closed it with us both covering our own costs (i.e. I was also out of pocket further due to the court costs). It must have been one of the very first TDS cases at the time, I'm not sure if that legal view is still held or if other judges have come to a different interpretation of the Housing Act?
n.b. I've also been a residential landlord (and never had to make a deduction from a deposit, except for a desserter who left the place in a bit of a mess). So I have sympathy for them, as there are some bad tenants about, but there are just as many bad landlords in my experience.
There are supposedly punishments for landlord's not complying with protecting deposits, and I had to go through this myself from the tenant's perspective not long after the legislation changed. My landlord made a whole load of unreasonable deductions (as used to happen all time beforehand). I fought it, both on the grounds that they failed to protect the deposit, and that the deductions were unreasonable anyway. I took it through the small claims process, and after a comical u turn from the judge, he decided that the landlord wasn't in breach of the housing act because the tenancy had now ended (his interpretation of the act), so he judged that there was no case to answer and closed it with us both covering our own costs (i.e. I was also out of pocket further due to the court costs). It must have been one of the very first TDS cases at the time, I'm not sure if that legal view is still held or if other judges have come to a different interpretation of the Housing Act?
n.b. I've also been a residential landlord (and never had to make a deduction from a deposit, except for a desserter who left the place in a bit of a mess). So I have sympathy for them, as there are some bad tenants about, but there are just as many bad landlords in my experience.
Mandalore said:
Really?
You honestly think he shouldn't return the entire deposit and move on to the next tenant?
Im struggling to equate how you think he can?
Sorry Mandalore there was a lot in that post I quoted. I think you can see from my response and my previous posts that I think the landlord (OP) should return the deposit in full and move on.You honestly think he shouldn't return the entire deposit and move on to the next tenant?
Im struggling to equate how you think he can?
I'm still amazed that people treat this business like they do and wonder why they get their fingers burnt when they mess up.
I'd say you got off lucky. I had tenants in for 18 months approx and I've not got the final bill for putting everything right, but it'll be over £2k I reckon. The deposit obviously isn't going to cover everything, but hopefully I'm not out of pocket too much. If I'd a £120 bill for each year a tenant was in I'd be happy at that.
AndrewEH1 said:
Yet another private LL giving other decent, law abiding private LLs a bad name...
Calm down dear. The ONLY thing I did wrong was not having the deposit in the scheme. I was going to make entirely reasonable deductions from it for things clearly described in the contract. I have refunded the entire amount today and will learn lessons for next time but the idea that I am some horrendous landlord purely for not having the deposit in the scheme is ridiculous. Before the scheme existed were all landlords terrible? No.
AndrewEH1 said:
Yet another private LL giving other decent, law abiding private LLs a bad name...
Here in wales you now need a licence to be a private LL or you can have an agent manage the property for a fee.£30 to register with the National Assembly For Wales
£100-200 for a days training or £20 online. You have to read through the law pages and pages takes you most of the day and then you have to sit an exam with 50 questions.
£144 to WAFW to get your licence.
Although the dodgy ones wont even bother with a licence so it wont really help, it just gives the sensible ones a bit more knowledge.
Grunt Futtock said:
Calm down dear. The ONLY thing I did wrong was not having the deposit in the scheme. I was going to make entirely reasonable deductions from it for things clearly described in the contract.
I have refunded the entire amount today and will learn lessons for next time but the idea that I am some horrendous landlord purely for not having the deposit in the scheme is ridiculous. Before the scheme existed were all landlords terrible? No.
You still do not get it do you? You broke the law, end of.I have refunded the entire amount today and will learn lessons for next time but the idea that I am some horrendous landlord purely for not having the deposit in the scheme is ridiculous. Before the scheme existed were all landlords terrible? No.
I also agree with others who think £500 for 3 blinds is not reasonable. I put up 3 blinds in my BTL, cost £90 from B&Q.
Grunt Futtock said:
Calm down dear. The ONLY thing I did wrong was not having the deposit in the scheme. I was going to make entirely reasonable deductions from it for things clearly described in the contract.
I have refunded the entire amount today and will learn lessons for next time but the idea that I am some horrendous landlord purely for not having the deposit in the scheme is ridiculous. Before the scheme existed were all landlords terrible? No.
FWIW you may not be out of the woods yet.I have refunded the entire amount today and will learn lessons for next time but the idea that I am some horrendous landlord purely for not having the deposit in the scheme is ridiculous. Before the scheme existed were all landlords terrible? No.
KevinCamaroSS said:
You still do not get it do you? You broke the law, end of.
I also agree with others who think £500 for 3 blinds is not reasonable. I put up 3 blinds in my BTL, cost £90 from B&Q.
I know I broke the law but it's hardly the most heinous crime on the books is it? I also agree with others who think £500 for 3 blinds is not reasonable. I put up 3 blinds in my BTL, cost £90 from B&Q.
If you catch yourself doing 40 in a 30 do you pull over and flog yourself in penance?
£500 is actually for about seven blinds because of the shape of the windows and why should I have to go to the trouble of getting and fitting the cheapest blinds myself when the tenant destroyed the last set?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK, I can see this is a polarising debate, I can't be bothered arguing about it as I've already refunded. The tenant also broke the law (contract law) and this has cost me £600 to rectify. I broke the law and it has cost the tenant precisely nothing so leave the moral outrage aside. Grunt Futtock said:
Calm down dear. The ONLY thing I did wrong was not having the deposit in the scheme. I was going to make entirely reasonable deductions from it for things clearly described in the contract.
Yes, the only thing you did wrong was break the law in a manner that may leave you liable for multiple times the sum you were wrangling over, said law being so basic and well-publicised that even I know about it, and I haven't been on either side of a property rental arrangement since it came in.We're not saying you're some knuckle-dragging slumlord muscling little old ladies over made-up damage (though your blinds are horrendously expensive for a rental property), we're just saying that there is stuff that in order to be a landlord, it's just so fundamental to know about, we're amazed that you 1) didn't and 2) weren't having a full-on "ruh-roh" moment when it clicked.
Grunt Futtock said:
Before the scheme existed were all landlords terrible? No.
Enough were for them to introduce it...Grunt Futtock said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK, I can see this is a polarising debate, I can't be bothered arguing about it as I've already refunded. The tenant also broke the law (contract law) and this has cost me £600 to rectify. I broke the law and it has cost the tenant precisely nothing so leave the moral outrage aside. After 5 a yr tenancy I would be expecting to do a complete makeover (fair wear and tear etc) of the whole property costing more than £600 and have that factored into my business model.
alfie2244 said:
Not that it matters but as you broke the legal law of the land by not using a deposit scheme would that not invalidate your "contract law" contract with the tenant?
After 5 a yr tenancy I would be expecting to do a complete makeover (fair wear and tear etc) of the whole property costing more than £600 and have that factored into my business model.
I have spent about £1200 on other refurb work since the end of tenancy, I had factored this in. After 5 a yr tenancy I would be expecting to do a complete makeover (fair wear and tear etc) of the whole property costing more than £600 and have that factored into my business model.
I do agree that you don't seem to be the nicest LL. You've had a consistent tenancy for 5 years, not bothered to protect the tenancy and then taken the mickey with cleaning fees and some blinds. Despite the 5 years of rent being paid. A long term tenancy like that is the dream of most landlords, it's hardly worth penny pinching at the end - you're lucky a lot more work doesn't need doing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff