My deposit for the house I live in

Blacksheep1979

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Adversarial - taking up opposing positions. You didn't say she intended to keep your deposit, you said your landlady said she was within her rights to.

The landlady holds all the cards as you live in her house. You have a tenancy agreement that you will probably have broken a few small things on (e.g. wash the windows every month or no overnight guests without permission) plus the damage you admit to. If she wants to give you two months notice she can, if she wants to pick up on every minute thing, she can.

You may well end up getting your deposit back after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, but that's a lot of hassle. Better IMO to repair the relationship and walk away at the end of the tenancy with your deposit in your hand ready for the next let.

None of that has put her out of pocket by a grand and therefore she has no claim to it - she'll just end up further out of pocket with the court costs.

socrates

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I let my flat out for two years, had one tenant for the entire time who always paid on time and left the place immaculate. Other than that I have been a tenant myself on several occasions, only had a problem with one agent (found out from neighbours he was a nutter!).

Learned the hard way that there is no benefit in falling out with the landlord/ landlady or agent even if you are right as they can make your life very difficult indeed. Most of my deposit was withheld for several months, despite the owners being present when I moved out and commenting how clean and tidy it was. I got a full refund ... eventually.

Was that before or after deposits were protected?

Fire_Fox

pinkshoes wrote: »

Firefox, you sound like an idiot!!

Stringer bell, who paid for the damage to the garden? And did you put right the picture hooks (take them out and fill the holes)?

She can't deduct fair wear and tear from the deposit, but she can deduct the above unless you already footed the bill.

If you're moving out, then write her a letter (recorded delivery) stating that as you're returning the property in the same good condition as it was when you moved in, then you look forward to receiving your deposit back in the next 7 working days.

If she doesn't reply, write again, giving her another 7 days, and this time say if you don't receive it, you'll be starting court action.

Have you ever renewed your contract in 3 years, or are you on a rolling contract?

Why do I sound like an idiot? The OP laughed at his landlady and suggested he'd take her to the small claims court. She is obviously not best pleased - rightly or wrongly - as she has raised the issue of the deposit and employed a letting agent. You might not agree with what the way I would approach the situation (repair the relationship) but that is no reason to throw insults.

Fire_Fox

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

None of that has put her out of pocket by a grand and therefore she has no claim to it - she'll just end up further out of pocket with the court costs.

I haven't said the landlady has any right to withold the damage deposit. But it's the OPs money which will remain frozen until the dispute is resolved. Everyone is talking like the small claims court is a done deal, when there may be an easier way.

socrates wrote: »

Was that before or after deposits were protected?

Before I think. I was pretty green then, first time renting alone after a very controlling marriage. The money was withheld on trumped up stuff like rubbish left behind (in the dustbin!), a leak underneath the bath, and other stuff which I forget now. The 'bill' all seemed legitimate, I was really lucky the owners had come over to tidy the garden on my last day.

The agent took a dislike to me early on for some reason and tried really hard to get me out, writing to warn me not to have overnight guests (my best friend) without permission ... even threatening once to ring my ex-husband! :eek: I later found out from neighbours that he'd chased out two previous tenants the same way.

socrates

Exactly - now that deposits are protected a LL cannot hold tenants to ransom - thats why they were introduced - as well as producing a list for the Inland Revenue to go through

bryanb

socrates wrote: »

Exactly - now that deposits are protected a LL cannot hold tenants to ransom - thats why they were introduced - as well as producing a list for the Inland Revenue to go through

It's true that deposits are protected now, but the OP has been renting the property since before the law changed,as said in post 1. Not sure of the position, is it protected or not?

socrates

bryanb wrote: »

It's true that deposits are protected now, but the OP has been renting the property since before the law changed,as said in post 1. Not sure of the position, is it protected or not?

That comment was in relation to FF - read the thread through properly and you will see what I meant

bryanb

socrates wrote: »

That comment was in relation to FF - read the thread through properly and you will see what I meant

Misunderstanding here, I was interested to know whether the OP's deposit was protected under new laws in spite of being 3yrs old, ie, before the introduction of the present law.
Also OP has not said if under notice to quit: what is the position?

socrates

bryanb wrote: »

Misunderstanding here, I was interested to know whether the OP's deposit was protected under new laws in spite of being 3yrs old, ie, before the introduction of the present law.
Also OP has not said if under notice to quit: what is the position?

I also asked that question and never got an answer

Geenie

I don't think it is worth getting into arguments over this until the OP has given a clear answer on the deposit being protected. It sounds like it was originally, and then the LL removed it and started using a LA to manage the property.

This doesn't mean that it is still not protected in some other scheme, as I believe there are some where the LL holds on to the deposit, but pays a yearly fee, unlike the DPS which is free.

The first thing the tenant needs to do is find out if it is still protected, with who and were they given the relevant paper work. Once this is known then the arguments can continue............