No inventory - no deposit retention clarification please

Fire_Fox

The thread is from 2008, Premier doesn't even post on this part of the forums anymore!

nigel_cro

Hi Everyone, just finished reading this thread and it has clarified my thoughts and educated me in equal parts.

Youngest Daughter has just moved out of rented student accommodation and we have received a claim against deposit from the LL.

Some items on the list are not contested, but an awful lot of items are what I consider to be fair wear and tear and I think he is trying to pull a fast one (the house was one tenant short for the entire year, and a cynical person might think the LL was trying to recoup some of his losses)

At the start of the let, my daughter was provided with an inventory and asked to check it herself, sign it and return it to the LA.

She commented on about 50% of the items on the inventory, making corrections and pointing out damage/defects which had not been properly recorded.

She took the inventory into the LA and handed it to a known member of staff.

There was no follow up from either the LA or the LL to discuss the matters raised in the inventory.

At the conclusion of the Let, neither the LL or the LA were present to review the property.

The review was carried out by the LL alone at an unknown date.

The LL has lied/was mistaken in areas of his claim - as an example he claimed £25 for cutting the grass, the grass was cut the day before my daughter vacated the property, both my wife and myself are prepared to swear on oath to the fact that the grass had been cut.

Now, the crippler, the LA claim that they do not have the original inventory.... The member of staff to whom it was handed has left the company and they are insisting we have to rely on an unsigned, uncommented inventory, which may, or may not, be the same as the original one (no, we didn't take a copy of the original - we are generally speaking trusting folks). My view is that they have lost the original.

I am prepared to negotiate as an alternative to SCC and, prior to the disappearance of the inventory, offered a reduced sum to the LL dealing with the areas that we don't dispute, he has rejected this offer.

I know there are no guarantees, but you guys have vast amounts of experience in this area and I am sure have encountered similar cases.

If the LA persist with their case - i.e. never received the inventory - should I get sworn affidavits from Daughter and friend and serve them?

Should I get affidavits done from me and the wife as to the state of the house at the start and end of the let? Or, should I start proceedings in SCC and put the case directly to a judge and let them sort it out.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling and disjointed, hopefully you guys can pick the bones out of it. Any help would be very gratefully accepted.

Thanks,

Nigel

tbs624

Was your daughter signed up to her own contract for use of her own room, plus shared areas, or was she on one joint and several liability contract for the whole property, with the other Ts? Am assuming that its perhaps the former as you refer to one room remaining unlet for the year?

Have the other Ts had any of their deposits withheld?

Is the property in Eng/Wales and, if yes, was the tenancy deposit scheme registered and the prescribed info from the scheme given to the Ts?

nigel_cro

TBS - She was on a joint and several liability contract.

The claim against deposit is against the full amount of deposit, which is against the 2 tenants - It gets complicated about now, but the other tenant owes Daughter money in lieu of his share of the bills throughout the year and has signed over his interest in his portion of the deposit.

The property is in England - I will need to ask about whether or not any paperwork was served in relation to the TDS, I seem to think it wasn't, but I may be wrong (it has been known) - I am only presuming that the deposit was registered - although with these particular LAs nothing would surprise me....

tbs624

nigel_cro wrote: »

TBS - She was on a joint and several liability contract.

If that's the case then the LL could look to your daughter an housemate to pay the *full* rent for the whole property. Have you checked through the tenancy agreement?

nigel_cro wrote: »

The claim against deposit is against the full amount of deposit, which is against the 2 tenants - It gets complicated about now, but the other tenant owes Daughter money in lieu of his share of the bills throughout the year and has signed over his interest in his portion of the deposit.

So obviously your daughter will be left further out of pocket.....

nigel_cro wrote: »

The property is in England - I will need to ask about whether or not any paperwork was served in relation to the TDS, I seem to think it wasn't, but I may be wrong (it has been known) - I am only presuming that the deposit was registered - although with these particular LAs nothing would surprise me....

You or your daughter can check with each of 3 schemes - TDS, DPS mydeposits. Seek written confirmation either way.

If the LL has failed to meet the requirement of the tenancy deposit regs, a court can order him to reimburse the T with the deposit, plus order a penalty payment of 3x the deposit amount to be made, plus an award for costs.

nigel_cro

If that's the case then the LL could look to your daughter an housemate to pay the *full* rent for the whole property. Have you checked through the tenancy agreement?

They came to an agreement early on in the tenancy whereby the two remaining tenants would pay a slightly increased rent, at the LLs suggestion. Outstanding rent is not an issue in this case.

So obviously your daughter will be left further out of pocket.....

Exactly!! and for Daughter, read Father......

You or your daughter can check with each of 3 schemes - TDS, DPS mydeposits. Seek written confirmation either way.

Thanks for this, I am starting the process now - I presume I can do it online? But I will find out. I will also ask the LA to confirm one way or the other, but the member of staff dealing with this is not in the office until Tuesday, so it may have to wait.