We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
No inventory - no deposit retention clarification please
Comments
-
How would a tenant prove that the damage was already existing if no signed inventory has been done?...how would a LL prove that the damage had been done by the current tenant if no signed inventory has been done...
That's exactly why it's in the interest of both LL and tenant to get have an inventory/statement of condition.
Where no inventory/statement of condition exists at the TA start it all boils down to the balance of probablity. There are many other ways the LL could provide some form of indication to support his claim (the LL has all the historical records & receipts); the tenant is somewhat limited by what he could offer (unless he was wise enough to create his own form of inventory/statement of condition at the start and send it to the LL)."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
The problem was that none of the problems were apparent when we took the house on. It looked clean and newly done. After a short while the existing problems started showing through.
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)
In this instance the damp has risen through the floor and through the carpet. Therefore it has made it dirty, certainly dirtier than it would have been on a dry floor. We tried to clean it, but the cleaning fluid simply brought more dirt/stains up.
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?
Again, no evidence at all when we moved in. The carpet in the dining room was laid directly on a wooden floor over exisiting rat holes. It was only when we came down one morning to find the carpet chewed through in both corners and rat poo everywhere that we realised we had a problem. I notified the LA at once, but they didn't want to know, neither did the council. We put poison down which eventually worked, but not after a lot of damage to the carpets, vinyl and wood.
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 and me both - it's not a habit of ours
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 rust simply bubbled through. Too many gaps in the windows to let condensation build up. This is a listed building with 17thC windows.
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?
Yes, we told the LA frequently and pointed out the damage it was causing. They said they would get a builder out to remedy it, but never did. The leaks didn't cause us any obvious problems, just stained the carpet/ceiling.0 -
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:
The LL would have to show, however, that the carpet had been clean to start with, not that hte cleaning was necessary.
It was you who called the judge "M'lud", and, of course, a female High Court judge wouldn't be My Lord, she'd be My Lady....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »The LL would have to show, however, that the carpet had been clean to start with, not that hte cleaning was necessary.
Surely it's for the tenant to prove that too? The tenant wants the return of the retained portion of the deposit back. The LL has explained why those deductions were made. The tenant needs to prove those deductions were not lawful.
It can go both ways - hence why I keep saying that an inventory/satement of condition is in the interest of both the LL and the tenant.
Perhaps, also, you missed the bit where the OP stated:
One would assume the LL could prove this by producing a receipt needed, if for no other reason, to justify a lawful tax deduction.merlinthehappypig wrote:We have things like a new (cheap) carpet ...
Again, no proof the LL didn't then go crazy and decide to deliberately soil the nice new carpet just before the tenant took over the property, but it comes down to balance of probability, not proof beyond all reasonable doubt."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Surely it's for the tenant to prove that too? The tenant wants the return of the retained portion of the deposit back. The LL has explained why those deductions were made. The tenant needs to prove those deductions were not lawful.
It can go both ways - hence why I keep saying that an inventory/satement of condition is in the interest of both the LL and the tenant.
Perhaps, also, you missed the bit where the OP stated:
The LL has to show two things. Firstly, that something was done (carpet cleaning, painting, whatever). Secondly, that this was necessary to bring the place back to the way it had been before the let. Waving a receipt does nothing to show this second part.
An inventory certainly helps clarify the position all round, you are right. But the lack of one is, I think, far more damaging to the LL than the tenant.
I didn't miss anything. Our discussion was in general terms....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »The LL has to show two things. Firstly, that something was done (carpet cleaning, painting, whatever). Secondly, that this was necessary to bring the place back to the way it had been before the let. Waving a receipt does nothing to show this second part.
An inventory certainly helps clarify the position all round, you are right. But the lack of one is, I think, far more damaging to the LL than the tenant.
I didn't miss anything. Our discussion was in general terms.
The tenant is claiming the deposit back. The tenant needs to show they are entitled to the deposit back. Until that is proven, there isn't even a case to answer
This is why an agreed inventory/statement of condition is also in the interests of a tenant - it provides the basis of such proof."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Although it may normally appear that a claimant has to prove a claim, in actual fact there is a presumption that the tenant owns the money in question. Therefore it is for the Landlord to show that the money was taken with good cause. In the first instance the tenant only has to prove that the LL had the deposit and then didn't pay it back. The LL has to defend withholding the deposit - ie justify their actions.The tenant is claiming the deposit back. The tenant needs to show they are entitled to the deposit back. Until that is proven, there isn't even a case
If there were no deposit, the LL would have to sue the tenant and prove his reasons for taking the money. Fairly obviously, that would tend to unfairness towards LL's and clogging the courts, so the deposit goes someway to ameliorating that. But it shouldn't change the fact that the deposit belongs to the tenant and the LL has to prove their loss.After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
Where is this presumed please? Could you reference this with the necessary statute or citation please?Although it may normally appear that a claimant has to prove a claim, in actual fact there is a presumption that the tenant owns the money in question. Therefore it is for the Landlord to show that the money was taken with good cause. In the first instance the tenant only has to prove that the LL had the deposit and then didn't pay it back. The LL has to defend withholding the deposit - ie justify their actions.
If there were no deposit, the LL would have to sue the tenant and prove his reasons for taking the money. Fairly obviously, that would tend to unfairness towards LL's and clogging the courts, so the deposit goes someway to ameliorating that. But it shouldn't change the fact that the deposit belongs to the tenant and the LL has to prove their loss.
No, because one doesn't exist (afaik)!"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
That's why it is a presumption, silly. If there were a citation, we would be simply saying it belongs to the tenant.Where is this presumed please? Could you reference this with the necessary statute or citation please?
No, because one doesn't exist (afaik)!
But for evidence of the presumption, look at the generic name of the deposit schemes.After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
You don't need statute for everything in life Premier, sometimes it is called common sense.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards