Blooming landlord is doing my nut in. Problem with my bond

NUFCnutter

So is that letter really too harsh?

NUFCnutter

Premier wrote: »

Oh dear that's a pity. If you had obtained those, it would be so much easier for you.

The problem is what one person considers clean is what another considers dirty.

Such inventories/statements of condition are in the interests of both the landlord and the tenant.

The only way you can get your moneyback, if you cannot otherwise agree with the LL/LA, is to take the matter to court and pursuade the judge of your right to it's return. i.e. that the LL was not right to make the deductions they have done.

But then if I say to the Judge, I left the house in the a good condition, and the LL is attempting to use my bond money for betterment of the house, surely it is up to the LL then to show that he is not. And as he cannot prove what the house was like when I first started renting it, or that I caused any damage how can he prove that the work is necessary.

Premier_2

NUF!!!!ter wrote: »

But then if I say to the Judge, I left the house in the a good condition, and the LL is attempting to use my bond money for betterment of the house, surely it is up to the LL then to show that he is not. And as he cannot prove what the house was like when I first started renting it, or that I caused any damage how can he prove that the work is necessary.

You are the one making the claim that the LL is using the bond money for the betterment of the house - you need to justify that claim.

NUFCnutter

He has no inventory from either the end or the start of the agreement to show he isn't though.

Loretta

Premier wrote: »

The lack of inventory/statement of condition does not imply this.

Now if one existed, the resolution of the dispute would be so much easier.

Normally in law, it is required that a claimant proves something is owed, before a defendant needs to do anything.

Without the tenancy/statement of condition, it would be difficult for the tenant to prove "it was as clean as when they moved in"

You have got this the wrong way round

The deposit belongs to the tenant and he want it returned to him

If the Landord wants to keep some of the tenants deposit he has to say why. If he is going to say there was damage or dirt he has to prove the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, that is what an inventory and check in is for. If the lanldord has not bothered with that part of the arrangement he cannot prove his point so he has no alternative to return his tenant's money in full.

There are rules about these things and if everyone does what they are supposed to do everything is simple. If one person thinks that they can get clever it all gets complicated

Quite simple reall y

Loretta

Premier wrote: »

You are the one making the claim that the LL is using the bond money for the betterment of the house - you need to justify that claim.

Wrong

The landlord has the tenant's money and is not giving it back, presumably claiming that there is dirt and damage, he needs to prove that ie. by providing an inventory of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and showing that it is now in a worse condition.

NUFCnutter

Thank you, I have been looking into it and that is how I have interpreted it also. The bond money still belongs to me, and the LL needs to justify why he needs to keep it, rather than me prove that he doesn't.

Premier_2

Loretta wrote: »

Wrong

The landlord has the tenant's money and is not giving it back, presumably claiming that there is dirt and damage, he needs to prove that ie. by providing an inventory of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and showing that it is now in a worse condition.

The LL has the money - the tenant wants it.

The tenant needs to prove the LL owes it him

NUFCnutter

Of course I can prove he owes me the money. He has the money. I can prove I paid the money and he has it. He cannot prove any damage was done to the property by myself. Therefore I should get the money back. Simple really.

Loretta

The deposit is the tenant's money, he gives it to the landlord in case he damages anything. if the tenant thinks he has not damaged anything at the end of the tenancy he asks for it back and expects to get it back.

If the Landord thinks the tenant has damaged the property during the tenancy he has to prove the damage happened during the tenancy. The best way to prove it is to produce a detailed inventory or check in report. If the landlord cannot produce this proof ie a detailed check in report, he should return the deposit in full.

This is the tenants money and he wants it back. The Landlord does not 'owe' money, it is not his money, it belongs to the tenant.

If the Landlord wants to keep it he has to say why and prove it.

Premier you seem to always see things back to front.