Landlord trying to charge £506 out of deposit - but no inventory

schnide

Dear All

I would very, very much appreciate your help.

I started a joint tenancy on a property with two others in May 2008. The ~£2800 deposit was held in a deposit protection scheme, with me as lead tenant. We did complete an inventory.

We then broke contract, with agreement of the landlord, to remove one of the tenants. Myself and another stayed on, and a new third joined us, under a new contract in August 2008. We did not, to my knowledge, complete an inventory (nor asked to) and the previous deposit scheme stayed in place.

Several items were already worn and torn, such as the blinds and sofas. The sofas were worn to the point where the landlord asked me several months ago if I would like them once we moved out, as they intended to replace them. I also have emails stating they already intended to replace the blinds, paint some walls, some other repairs once we'd moved out.

We moved out and left several items in the flat - Christmas lights, several food items, a duvet or two. We also partially cleaned the flat but had agreed that we would pay some costs (around £120 total) for a professional cleaner as per the previous tenants if we could agree that up-front sum rather than do it ourselves, as we knew they'd already get cleaners in anyway.

The landlords refused to pre-agree the partial cost, as I believe is their right, to visit the property. They've now produced a list of what we think is entirely unreasonable costs, suggesting that all the items they'd already agreed they would be replacing anyway have been damaged by us. They've said it took 6 1/2 man hours to clear the flat before any cleaning took place. They have said that they will cap our part of the cleaning costs at £150 total, but are saying we are partly responsible for many replacement items.

In total, they are saying they will keep ~£500 total of our deposit. Although I have every suspicion they expect us to bargain them down, I object to the fact they've even suggested we're responsible for anywhere near this.

My question for any experts willing to help answer my first thoughts, is -

1) If there was no inventory in place for the start of the relevant contract, do they have much ground to stand on?

2) Does the fact that the deposit protection scheme was in place for the May and not August contract have any bearing on how we are protected?

Many, many thanks in advance to any help offered on this. I am of course happy to provide any follow-up information.

sooz

What was the fixed term of your contract which started in May?
Are you certain you signed a new fixed term AST, & not a deed of variation or assignment, adding & removing a tenant from the original AST?

schnide

Hi Sooz and thanks for the reply.

The fixed term was to run from May 08 to May 09 originally, but I have written proof from the landlord confirming that we ended that contract.

The new contract then ran from August 08 to May 09 and was definitely a new contract for the latest three of us.

We didn't renew anything officially with the landlord in terms of the deposit protection, which stayed the same - however I remained as the lead tenant on it during both contracts.

schnide

*polite bump*

bumpoowee

As I understand it, a lack of inventory works in your favour, as it makes it very hard (or impossible?) for your landlord/agent to prove the original condition of the property.

schnide

Did you get that from a Google search? I think I found the same page, but was hoping for something closer to actual legal advice, given the timing of the new contract and the previous deposit agreement.

Nevertheless, thanks for your help - I'd be most interested to hear from anyone else.

N79

I'm afraid that you won't get "actual legal advice" on here - for that you need to go and pay a solicitor. However, what bumpoowee has said is substantially correct.

While a LL does not need an inventory in order to make deductions from a deposit, they do have to prove that the T caused the damage "on a balance of probabilities" (ie that it is more likely that the T caused the damage than some other cause). For relatively minor and cosmetic damage, without an inventory the LL will struggle to prove his case against a T who simply states that the damage was pre-existing. For more major damage (big holes in walls etc) the LL may well be able to prove their deductions without a inventory by other means (eg by independent witnesses who will remember there not being a big hole in the wall but who can not remember every small stain in the carpet etc).

Provided the deposit remained protected throught the two tenancies then whether the LL repaid the original and took a new deposit or kept the original deposit throughout does not matter.

schnide

Thank you very much for this - I certainly didn't expect legal advice, what I meant was as close to it as possible, ie. an informed opinion, of which I know there are many on here. You help is much appreciated.

clutton_2

if you paid £2600 deposit and they LL is trying to charge you £500 odd for removing your old possessions, cleaning and some decorating, i think that this could be a reasonably fair deduction - depending on what is on the LLs list. i have had tenants argue "i only left a bit of stuff" - which took me a skip hire and 2 men to empty and clean the house

if you have an inventory for the beginning of the contract - a judge may well argue that it will b e carried on as THE inventory for the following fixed period - especially as there was only one change of tenant - only my opinion.

schnide

That would be a fairly strange judgement in my opinion if that were the case, but then if I were any kind of expert, I wouldn't be on here asking for help..

sooz

I agree with Clutton. The deposit was protected, & the lead tenant stayed the same. As two tenants remained in the property, it was never fully vacated, so a full check out & check in could not be conducted. The LL should have changed the tenant as a deed of assignment, not a new AST. However, the fact that the term finished at the same time as the original term shows this was his intention.

I don't know if £500 is reasonable, as I have no idea how much stuff you left, or quite how much you left for someone else to clean.