Deposit cock up with tenancy , am I screwed?
Discussion
PorkInsider said:
Tebbers said:
It's not compensation OP. It's a penalty.
But when the 'no win, no fee' types get involved that's not to see LLs brought to justice, is it.Grunt Futtock said:
I'm not disputing that a law was broken, what I am disappointed about is that the penalty can be so severe even in cases where there has been no loss of any kind suffered.
As a tenant I do think it's a tad extreme. When I rented with someone who hadn't protected the deposit I knew what I could have got the 3x compensation, but I was happy to make that known to the LL purely as a means of ensuring that 1x the deposit came back. I wasn't bothered about getting more back than I'd deposited in the first place. I guess it all depends how soundly someone can sleep on a night after pocketing a big pile of someone else's money.MitchT said:
Grunt Futtock said:
I'm not disputing that a law was broken, what I am disappointed about is that the penalty can be so severe even in cases where there has been no loss of any kind suffered.
As a tenant I do think it's a tad extreme. When I rented with someone who hadn't protected the deposit I knew what I could have got the 3x compensation, but I was happy to make that known to the LL purely as a means of ensuring that 1x the deposit came back. I wasn't bothered about getting more back than I'd deposited in the first place. I guess it all depends how soundly someone can sleep on a night after pocketing a big pile of someone else's money.Even once the OP knew of the potential 3x penalty he failed to agree to meet somewhere in the middle and stuck by his original offer of 1x + 20%. I fully understand why the son, given his mother's circumstances, is playing hardball and I am a landlord myself.
^ Im not seeing it. The offer was +20% and writing off the blinds/cleaning, however much that really is.
The son of the tenants sounds like a t
t. The penalty for LL is up to 3x, not 3x. It would be ironic if the son only gets 1x, then has to pay the NWNF solicitor, then has to pay the cleaning and the blinds.
The son of the tenants sounds like a t
t. The penalty for LL is up to 3x, not 3x. It would be ironic if the son only gets 1x, then has to pay the NWNF solicitor, then has to pay the cleaning and the blinds. creampuff said:
^ Im not seeing it. The offer was +20% and writing off the blinds/cleaning, however much that really is.
The son of the tenants sounds like a tt. The penalty for LL is up to 3x, not 3x. It would be ironic if the son only gets 1x, then has to pay the NWNF solicitor, then has to pay the cleaning and the blinds.
How would you get him to pay for the cleaning and blinds afterwards?The son of the tenants sounds like a t
t. The penalty for LL is up to 3x, not 3x. It would be ironic if the son only gets 1x, then has to pay the NWNF solicitor, then has to pay the cleaning and the blinds. alfie2244 said:
Which may well have been the case had he just given the deposit straight back in full at the outset but he wanted to deduct £100 for cleaning & £500 for some blinds so the son, given his mother had not been in a position due to her health, was now dealing with and asked for details of where the deposit was lodged so he could challenge the deductions (as is his right).
Even once the OP knew of the potential 3x penalty he failed to agree to meet somewhere in the middle and stuck by his original offer of 1x + 20%. I fully understand why the son, given his mother's circumstances, is playing hardball and I am a landlord myself.
Im with this. OP seems to have gone out for full costs straight off but didn't like the reciprocal action.Even once the OP knew of the potential 3x penalty he failed to agree to meet somewhere in the middle and stuck by his original offer of 1x + 20%. I fully understand why the son, given his mother's circumstances, is playing hardball and I am a landlord myself.
As an aside my sis told me people were getting compensation for unemployment protection mis-selling even though their situation had changed and they'd successfully claimed on the policy. Point being if you had an obligation you have to fulfill it and I suspect a tenant that loses their deposit because they trash a place could still claim
Edited by Heres Johnny on Saturday 10th June 17:46
creampuff said:
The son of the tenants sounds like a tt. The penalty for LL is up to 3x, not 3x. It would be ironic if the son only gets 1x, then has to pay the NWNF solicitor, then has to pay the cleaning and the blinds.
1x the deposit on top of the deposit being returned is more than the deposit plus 20%. If I am understanding it correctly, then this is the minimum amount that would be decided, so there is no reason for them to go for that other than avoiding the time/hassle of court.t. The penalty for LL is up to 3x, not 3x. It would be ironic if the son only gets 1x, then has to pay the NWNF solicitor, then has to pay the cleaning and the blinds. He will not just get 1x the deposit.
He will not have to pay for the cleaning and blinds.
As for whether he's a t
t, matter of opinion. I'm a tt too - if it were my mum, I'd do the same.You could also argue that his claim for £500 for 3 No replacement blinds was excessive in the 1st place and that it was the OP that initially started the "trying it on".
Even if they had been still hanging in position they would have been 5yrs old and FW&T over they period could have reduced their value to £0...so to charge her for new blinds would have left the OP in a better position than he would otherwise have been.
The overwhelming advice after the OP's original post was to refund immediately but he didn't seem to want to hear this. So IMO he has to take the consequences whatever they may be.
Even if they had been still hanging in position they would have been 5yrs old and FW&T over they period could have reduced their value to £0...so to charge her for new blinds would have left the OP in a better position than he would otherwise have been.
The overwhelming advice after the OP's original post was to refund immediately but he didn't seem to want to hear this. So IMO he has to take the consequences whatever they may be.
alfie2244 said:
You could also argue that his claim for £500 for 3 No replacement blinds was excessive in the 1st place and that it was the OP that initially started the "trying it on".
Even if they had been still hanging in position they would have been 5yrs old and FW&T over they period could have reduced their value to £0...so to charge her for new blinds would have left the OP in a better position than he would otherwise have been.
The overwhelming advice after the OP's original post was to refund immediately but he didn't seem to want to hear this. So IMO he has to take the consequences whatever they may be.
I'm in full agreement with this, I'm also a landlord.Even if they had been still hanging in position they would have been 5yrs old and FW&T over they period could have reduced their value to £0...so to charge her for new blinds would have left the OP in a better position than he would otherwise have been.
The overwhelming advice after the OP's original post was to refund immediately but he didn't seem to want to hear this. So IMO he has to take the consequences whatever they may be.
Surely any penalties should be a penalty for the landlord and not a gravy train for the tenant? Should the law not reflect this to stop NWNF scumbags taking the piss with claims like this? Whether Wings is right or not, the common sense approach should obviously be to ensure that the tenant gets their deposit back, not to leave the tenant in a far better position through the punishment of a landlord? What a st law of unintended consequences. Residents of houses in areas where people are caught speeding don't get given fistfuls of cash from the proceeds of law enforcement, why should tenants be given any more than being returned to the position they were in to start with.
OP did wrong, not in dispute. Offered to remediate and the son is being a c*nt because he can get a load of wonga out of it. Change the law, the return of the deposit can still be enforced providing the incentive to take the landlord to court legitimately; the 'punishment' goes to the legal system providing some much-needed funding and removing the incentive to take the piss.
Am I missing something?
t law of unintended consequences. Residents of houses in areas where people are caught speeding don't get given fistfuls of cash from the proceeds of law enforcement, why should tenants be given any more than being returned to the position they were in to start with.OP did wrong, not in dispute. Offered to remediate and the son is being a c*nt because he can get a load of wonga out of it. Change the law, the return of the deposit can still be enforced providing the incentive to take the landlord to court legitimately; the 'punishment' goes to the legal system providing some much-needed funding and removing the incentive to take the piss.
Am I missing something?
What am I missing?
Tenant moves in to house. Pays deposit. OP doesn't protect deposit.
Elderly lady cannot keep house to good cleanliness standard and so house requires cleaning due to grease, mould etc. after a few years tenancy.
Elderly lady removes blinds which end up with them being stuffed in a bag and presumably damaged.
The son - who is so caring would appear to be happy to let his mother live in a dirty house (presumption), then challenges the OP's cleaning bill which seems reasonable enough, as well as, the cost of new blinds.
If that is what I understand to be the case - why should the OP have to pay for blinds and cleaning? I can't quite understand the bit about how it is being mentioned she is elderly, yet it is also being stated that being a LL is a business in relation to not following the law regarding the deposit. Surely if that's the case - as a business you wouldn't take a hit and pay for someone else's mess?
Admittedly, the OP made a mistake in not protecting the deposit - but how did this have an impact on blinds being removed and the house not being cleaned?
If I have completely missed the point here............I'm blaming the heat!
Tenant moves in to house. Pays deposit. OP doesn't protect deposit.
Elderly lady cannot keep house to good cleanliness standard and so house requires cleaning due to grease, mould etc. after a few years tenancy.
Elderly lady removes blinds which end up with them being stuffed in a bag and presumably damaged.
The son - who is so caring would appear to be happy to let his mother live in a dirty house (presumption), then challenges the OP's cleaning bill which seems reasonable enough, as well as, the cost of new blinds.
If that is what I understand to be the case - why should the OP have to pay for blinds and cleaning? I can't quite understand the bit about how it is being mentioned she is elderly, yet it is also being stated that being a LL is a business in relation to not following the law regarding the deposit. Surely if that's the case - as a business you wouldn't take a hit and pay for someone else's mess?
Admittedly, the OP made a mistake in not protecting the deposit - but how did this have an impact on blinds being removed and the house not being cleaned?
If I have completely missed the point here............I'm blaming the heat!
Stu08 said:
What am I missing?
Tenant moves in to house. Pays deposit. OP doesn't protect deposit.
Elderly lady cannot keep house to good cleanliness standard and so house requires cleaning due to grease, mould etc. after a few years tenancy.
Elderly lady removes blinds which end up with them being stuffed in a bag and presumably damaged.
The son - who is so caring would appear to be happy to let his mother live in a dirty house (presumption), then challenges the OP's cleaning bill which seems reasonable enough, as well as, the cost of new blinds.
If that is what I understand to be the case - why should the OP have to pay for blinds and cleaning? I can't quite understand the bit about how it is being mentioned she is elderly, yet it is also being stated that being a LL is a business in relation to not following the law regarding the deposit. Surely if that's the case - as a business you wouldn't take a hit and pay for someone else's mess?
Admittedly, the OP made a mistake in not protecting the deposit - but how did this have an impact on blinds being removed and the house not being cleaned?
If I have completely missed the point here............I'm blaming the heat!
Bold appears to be all that matters.Tenant moves in to house. Pays deposit. OP doesn't protect deposit.
Elderly lady cannot keep house to good cleanliness standard and so house requires cleaning due to grease, mould etc. after a few years tenancy.
Elderly lady removes blinds which end up with them being stuffed in a bag and presumably damaged.
The son - who is so caring would appear to be happy to let his mother live in a dirty house (presumption), then challenges the OP's cleaning bill which seems reasonable enough, as well as, the cost of new blinds.
If that is what I understand to be the case - why should the OP have to pay for blinds and cleaning? I can't quite understand the bit about how it is being mentioned she is elderly, yet it is also being stated that being a LL is a business in relation to not following the law regarding the deposit. Surely if that's the case - as a business you wouldn't take a hit and pay for someone else's mess?
Admittedly, the OP made a mistake in not protecting the deposit - but how did this have an impact on blinds being removed and the house not being cleaned?
If I have completely missed the point here............I'm blaming the heat!
OP was a bit heavy handed with a long term tenant in regards to cleaning and blinds and got the sons back up. Then son out about the bold bit and wanted OP put right which he is able to do legally.
I am a landlord myself, the legislation is what it is (rightly or wrongly) and if you don't like it then don't become a landlord. DPS schemes are everyday common knowledge and there is absolutely no excuse for either not using a scheme or not knowing the law / penalties around this.
The OP deducted £500 for 3 No blinds and £100 for cleaning after a 5 year let before making the refund
a) He should have at least allowed for 5yrs of fair wear and tear.
b) £100 cleaning after 5 yrs is taking the pi.s.
c) I would love to have a tenant that left after 5 yrs with only these issues to sort.
Had he not deducted these monies then I doubt the son would have kicked off and asked for the scheme reference.(which he was entitled to do). Even when advised on here to refund in full the OP was reluctant so as far as I am concerned he made a rod for his own back.
FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
The OP deducted £500 for 3 No blinds and £100 for cleaning after a 5 year let before making the refund
a) He should have at least allowed for 5yrs of fair wear and tear.
b) £100 cleaning after 5 yrs is taking the pi.s.
c) I would love to have a tenant that left after 5 yrs with only these issues to sort.
Had he not deducted these monies then I doubt the son would have kicked off and asked for the scheme reference.(which he was entitled to do). Even when advised on here to refund in full the OP was reluctant so as far as I am concerned he made a rod for his own back.
FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
alfie2244 said:
I am a landlord myself, the legislation is what it is (rightly or wrongly) and if you don't like it then don't become a landlord. DPS schemes are everyday common knowledge and there is absolutely no excuse for either not using a scheme or not knowing the law / penalties around this.
The OP deducted £500 for 3 No blinds and £100 for cleaning after a 5 year let before making the refund
a) He should have at least allowed for 5yrs of fair wear and tear.
b) £100 cleaning after 5 yrs is taking the pi.s.
c) I would love to have a tenant that left after 5 yrs with only these issues to sort.
Had he not deducted these monies then I doubt the son would have kicked off and asked for the scheme reference.(which he was entitled to do). Even when advised on here to refund in full the OP was reluctant so as far as I am concerned he made a rod for his own back.
FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
Spot onThe OP deducted £500 for 3 No blinds and £100 for cleaning after a 5 year let before making the refund
a) He should have at least allowed for 5yrs of fair wear and tear.
b) £100 cleaning after 5 yrs is taking the pi.s.
c) I would love to have a tenant that left after 5 yrs with only these issues to sort.
Had he not deducted these monies then I doubt the son would have kicked off and asked for the scheme reference.(which he was entitled to do). Even when advised on here to refund in full the OP was reluctant so as far as I am concerned he made a rod for his own back.
FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
alfie2244 said:
Had he not deducted these monies then I doubt the son would have kicked off and asked for the scheme reference.(which he was entitled to do). Even when advised on here to refund in full the OP was reluctant so as far as I am concerned he made a rod for his own back.
FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
Yes, precisely. And the OP was being warned about this as soon as the lack of DPS compliance was mentioned.FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
If someone stands in a glass house throwing stones at me or someone I give a damn about, I'll quite happily lob a half brick back in their direction just on general principles.
alfie2244 said:
I am a landlord myself, the legislation is what it is (rightly or wrongly) and if you don't like it then don't become a landlord. DPS schemes are everyday common knowledge and there is absolutely no excuse for either not using a scheme or not knowing the law / penalties around this.
The OP deducted £500 for 3 No blinds and £100 for cleaning after a 5 year let before making the refund
a) He should have at least allowed for 5yrs of fair wear and tear.
b) £100 cleaning after 5 yrs is taking the pi.s.
c) I would love to have a tenant that left after 5 yrs with only these issues to sort.
Had he not deducted these monies then I doubt the son would have kicked off and asked for the scheme reference.(which he was entitled to do). Even when advised on here to refund in full the OP was reluctant so as far as I am concerned he made a rod for his own back.
FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
If the tenant removed the blinds - is that wear and tear?The OP deducted £500 for 3 No blinds and £100 for cleaning after a 5 year let before making the refund
a) He should have at least allowed for 5yrs of fair wear and tear.
b) £100 cleaning after 5 yrs is taking the pi.s.
c) I would love to have a tenant that left after 5 yrs with only these issues to sort.
Had he not deducted these monies then I doubt the son would have kicked off and asked for the scheme reference.(which he was entitled to do). Even when advised on here to refund in full the OP was reluctant so as far as I am concerned he made a rod for his own back.
FWIW had it been my mother I would have done exactly the same as the son.
I am not a LL so genuinely interested to understand how it would be interpreted.
When I have rented in the past - the letting agency always do an inventory check and bring in professional cleaners (even though my then girlfriend and I kept the house clean and tidy). It appeared to be an accepted part of renting and would come from our deposit, regardless of how clean the house was.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff