Is letting agent taking the mick

UN17ED

clutton wrote: »

do you have an inventory of the condition of the property when you moved in ?

if you do not - then go ahead with a small claims court action - the LL/LA will have to prove condition when you moved in - and if they cannot produce an inventory signed by both LL AND tenant - they will proably lose their case and the judge will award you your deposit back

if you do decide this route - have a read of Eagerlearners thread on here - set aside a few hours !! - you will learn how to do it

I found this and will type in word for word what it says.

Schedule of condition:

This property has recently is in good order throughout. there are noobvious signs of damage and only the odd scuff mark at various locations in the property. the carpets are in good order and there is no major damage. the garden is laid mainly to lawn and well maintained. No full inventory detailed but no damage to speak of in the inventory.

Is this good or bad for us? i cannot for the life of me remeber an inventory at all, not like the house we have moved into now which has a very detailed inventory.

N79

It is good for you. If there was no major damage then there was obviously minor damage already! Also, they seem to claim that a scuff mark is not damage. The definition of good order will, of course, take into account the age of the carpet etc. So they are still left having to prove the condition of the property when you moved in - which they can not.

Send the Letter Before Action, give them a week and then file in the county court for the full deposit.

Just for completeness - the LL is claiming that you owe them for damages in excess of the deposit. I think it fair to warn you that if you go to court for the return of the deposit then the LL can ask the court to award them the extra money. Obviously the LL will need to prove all the deductions to the courts satisfaction which from what you have said they can not do. I mention this just in case you have given us the rose tinted version above.

00ec25

sounds like the classic case where both parties have a case for certain aspects and no case for other aspects. in my opinion some of them sound reasonable charges against you, others less so, but no idea if the net total is £1k or more - hence the reason why the deposit scheme now applies and you have an independnet arbitrator

if they are sticking to their interpretation of the "facts" then you will have to fight them through the courts as there is nothing in writing to support your case given the "inventory" you have appears to say everything was in order - doors falling off (?) is not an obvious aspect of fair wear and tear, but without seeing the state of the windows, it is also difficult to comment on why you should be liable for "damage" when it could equally be wear and tear due to poor quality original fittings

as for the carpets then the fact you have been there for 4 years could in some cases mean a court would view the charge for replacing these at the end of a tenancy as an "improvement" since it is reasonable to expect that the LL would have to replace such items on a rolling timescale particulalrly for properties aimed at the family market - ie where wear and tear rates will be more intensive

the fact you have provided (but not installed?) replacement tiles suggests there may be some acknowledgement on your part that they were damaged by you?

sorry not really clarified the position much