Deposit cock up with tenancy , am I screwed?

[Grunt Futtock]

Ok, long story short I didn't put the security deposit from my tenant in an approved scheme. Tenant stays for 5 years and leaves to go into a residential home but leaves property in a bit of a mess.

Required a deep clean as there was a layer of grease on everything in the kitchen and generally manky all round costing £100

New blinds required on 3 windows as she had stuffed them in a bag and let her cat sit on it for 3 years, cost £500

I've deducted this from the returned bond and her son acting on her behalf has kicked off. Now the points above are covered in the tenancy agreement however he is asking for the tenancy deposit scheme details so he can challenge it with them.

I'm assuming I am fked as I didn't do things properly , am I better returning the whole bond and swallowing the hit ? I don't have a leg to stand on do I?

[Grunt Futtock]

deckster said:

A five year tenancy and you're quibbling about a decent clean and replacing a couple of blinds?

Words fail me.

I absolutely see your point but there is a specific point in the contract about it being as clean as when it was handed over. There was also a specific point about keeping the fixtures and fittings not destroying them.

I will just be refunding the whole lot and doing it properly next time!

[Grunt Futtock]

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.

[Grunt Futtock]

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?

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?

[Grunt Futtock]

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]

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.

[Grunt Futtock]

Moominho said:

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.

Well you don't know the whole story, at the beginning of the tenancy I fitted a disabled access wet room with shower seat etc. at my cost in return for a 12 month tenancy agreement. I also had the kitchen refurbed mid tenancy as it was tired, didn't have to but did so because of the tenant being a good one.

[Grunt Futtock]

Update for those interested, tenant's son is going to take it to court but has asked if I would like to offer a settlement figure. I offered compensation of the original bond value plus 20%. Tenant's son declined and offered to accept 3 x the bond amount (so the maximum penalty in court).

I expect I will be restating my original offer as the tenant has suffered no loss whatsoever and indeed I have a signed agreement with her from the start of the tenancy agreeing for me to hold the bond and forfeiting it in the event of her leaving the property within 5 years to cover the significant cost of reinstalling the disabled access facilities for her use.

I understand that this doesn't exempt me from the law regarding TDS but I feel that given I have done everything to make her tenancy as pleasant as possible for her and returned her entire bond very quickly it should hopefully sit well with the court.

[Grunt Futtock]

C70R said:

You'll be paying him 3x the deposit, and if you're lucky you might just retain some cash to cover refurbishment. Let this be a lesson to you.

What information does the court use to determine penalty level? Is it simply length of time the deposit is unprotected?

[Grunt Futtock]

Not much by way of an update, awaiting response to second offer of settlement.

To clear up some of the speculation surrounding this:

The tenant and I have had a perfectly amicable relationship, I have sorted any repairs over the tenancy quickly and generally been an excellent landlord. The tenant passed on her regards and was sorry she was leaving.

The son however is out to extort as much money as he can. He's seen the gravy train and wants to ride it all the way to the bank.

The £500 blinds seem to be a point of contention, well when the blinds went in brand new they were only slightly less. They have had to be completely replaced including tracks etc and represent seven different blinds across three windows, £70 a blind isn't bad in my eyes.

The surfaces in the ktichen were thick with grease and the washing machine was covered in black mould. The front room had lots of mould because she effectively lived in there and never opened the windows. Investigation has shown that the mould was a result of never ventilating the flat whilst drying clothes and cooking indoors i.e. not a damp problem.

In any case the tenant had her bond returned in FULL within 24 hours of receiving the bank details. This 'compensation' the son seeks is exactly the same as the 'compensation' some of the ambulance chasers get their clientele to buy in to except on this occasion there is absolutely no loss/injury whatsoever.

[Grunt Futtock]

My eyes have been truly opened on the tenancy deposit compensation industry, there are plenty of no win no fee outfits who have sprung up to get greedy tenants as much money as possible.

To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.

[Grunt Futtock]

superlightr said:

your missing the point. Its not compensation industry. You broke the law. You should have used a letting agency or been more professional in letting out your property. Its a business. Businesses have rules and regs to comply with. there are 150 odd that directly apply to lettings. Most of my job at work is ensuring compliance for our landlords and us as their letting agent.

Most of the landlords that approach us after trying a bit of DIY letting and then get bitten really do not understand the laws and changes recently, they really don't approach vetting of tenants in the same level that we do as a family firm of letting agents They do not issue the correct documents and their properties do not comply with the laws. (not many agents are as careful as we are as a family business ).

We do well because we are on top of the legislation and protect our landlords and compliance.

It's referred to as tenancy deposit compensation on all the sites I have seen, Shelter for example. 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.