No inventory - no deposit retention clarification please

merlinthehappypig

Thanks for all the replies.

This is the first time that anyone has argued that the lack of inventory doesn't mean no deductions on this forum in recent memory, in my experience. That pretty much falls in line with my thoughts, that the inventory is there to protect both landlord and tenant. This is why I took so many photos when we started the tenancy.

I accept that I might need to go to court to get the money back and will do that if necessary.

The tenancy started (just) before the TDS came into force.

Notlob

merlinthehappypig wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.

This is the first time that anyone has argued that the lack of inventory doesn't mean no deductions on this forum in recent memory, in my experience. That pretty much falls in line with my thoughts, that the inventory is there to protect both landlord and tenant. This is why I took so many photos when we started the tenancy.

I accept that I might need to go to court to get the money back and will do that if necessary.

The tenancy started (just) before the TDS came into force.

In which case, I agree with Premier's original post.

guppy

Premier wrote: »

"Here's the receipt for the cleaning, m'lud"

Which proves what exactly?

Premier_2

guppy wrote: »

Which proves what exactly?

The cost actually incurred and so deducted from the deposit to bring it back to the condition it was in when it was rented (fair wear & tear excepted).

merlinthehappypig

Ultimately, then, it will come down to whoever a judge believes, I guess.

With my tenants hat on, surely it would be very difficult for any LL or LA to prove that any damage is the fault of the tenant if they have no record of the condition of the house when the tenant moves in. Equally, I suppose, photos excepted, I can't prove the condition of the house either, but I would have expected that the burden of proof should rest with the LL if they want to retain deposits.

The problem, in this instance, is that the house had basically been tarted up with none of the major faults initially obvious. We weren't buying it so had no form of survey which would have shown up the issues.

We have things like a new (cheap) carpet laid directly onto a stone floor with no underlay or damp-proofing; active rat holes simply carpeted over; exisiting damp patches painted over; metal windows painted over rust; roof leaks staining ceilings and so on.

Despite our best efforts it simply hasn't been possible to keep the house in the condition that it was rented because of these problems, but I don't see why we should be penalised, especially when the problems have been reported and not acted upon.

Is it worth mentioning the lack of inventory when the check out is done or is this now irrelevant?

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

"Here's the receipt for the cleaning, m'lud"

It's not enough to show that cleaning was done, but that the cleaning was necessary to return the flat / house to the condition it had been in at the start of the tenancy.

And, in the small claims, "Sir", not "My Lord" (-:

Premier_2

merlinthehappypig wrote:

Is it worth mentioning the lack of inventory when the check out is done or is this now irrelevant?

I wouldn't bother mentioning it. Just as a lack of an invventory/statement of condition doesn't help a LL prove the condition at the start, nor does it help the tenant.

With regards a carpet laid without underlay, then you give it back in the same condition, i.e. without underlay. Without underlay you could have a case for the carpet exhibiting more wear than it otherwise would (but not for it being dirty)

If you have evidence of an existing rat infestation before you started the tenancy (why did you even take it if it had an existing rat problem?) then obviously the rats will eat though the carpet laid over their access holes - you can't be responsible for that. What did you do about the rat infestation?
I'm not sure I'd like to live in a property with rats free to enter and leave as they like, save for a bit of carpet (food) in the way.

You are not usually responsible for the maintenance of window frames - if they've gone rusty again because you have evidence to prove they were rusty before and were just tarted up with a new coat of paint - again not your problem. Or could this have caused by you allowing condenation to build up on them?

The roof leaking to such an extent that it is staining the carpets could be a problem. If this was a one off event, then why wasn't this repaired/cleaned when the roof was repaired? If it was an ongoing problem, how did you manage to live there for so long with such a leaky roof? If you knew the roof was leaking, did you take any action to prevent further damage by the water ingress?

It doesn't really make any sense to me.

Premier_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It's not enough to show that cleaning was done, but that the cleaning was necessary to return the flat / house to the condition it had been in at the start of the tenancy.

And, in the small claims, "Sir", not "My Lord" (-:

Of course the cleaning was necessary. Why would a LL pay good money to clean a clean carpet?


I don't think a Judge would be too happy if she was referred to as 'Sir' either :rotfl:

lynzpower

merlinthehappypig wrote: »

Ultimately, then, it will come down to whoever a judge believes, I guess.

With my tenants hat on, surely it would be very difficult for any LL or LA to prove that any damage is the fault of the tenant if they have no record of the condition of the house when the tenant moves in. Equally, I suppose, photos excepted, I can't prove the condition of the house either, but I would have expected that the burden of proof should rest with the LL if they want to retain deposits.

The problem, in this instance, is that the house had basically been tarted up with none of the major faults initially obvious. We weren't buying it so had no form of survey which would have shown up the issues.

We have things like a new (cheap) carpet laid directly onto a stone floor with no underlay or damp-proofing; active rat holes simply carpeted over; exisiting damp patches painted over; metal windows painted over rust; roof leaks staining ceilings and so on.

Despite our best efforts it simply hasn't been possible to keep the house in the condition that it was rented because of these problems, but I don't see why we should be penalised, especially when the problems have been reported and not acted upon.

Is it worth mentioning the lack of inventory when the check out is done or is this now irrelevant?

Honestly, if you go to court, and your landlord is going to try and charge you for these instances, then your case it - as I would guesstimate- cut and dried.

Your landlord has a duty to retain the fabric of the building in good order. Damp, rat holes, they jsut cannot be attributable to "damage" that a tenant can do, Serious damp issues are a structural issue, - and if it involves rotting frames, peeling pain and the like, and if the landlord tries to charge you for those- that would certainly constitute betterment in my view, and he wouldnt get away with it.

clutton_2

normally it is the LLs responsibility to provide an inventory - and get the tenant to sign it - but here is nothing stopping a tenant from preparing one for him/her self and sending a copy to the LL.

it would be difficult for a judge to rule against a tenant reclaiming a with-held-deposit if there were no inventory legally signed and accepted by both parties at the beginning of the tenancy - how would a LL prove that the damage had been done by the current tenant if no signed inventory has been done ?

proof is all ...