AST contract start date mistake - help please

iglepiggle

I have a signed 2008 12 month AST contract. However, there has been a mistake on the contract tenancy start date year - as it is marked 2007 as opposed to 2008.
All the other dates - for increases in rent, signature dates are all 2008.

The contract has been honoured by both parties for 2008 (ie the 2008 contract renewal was billed and paid for, rental was increased per contract and increased).

However, now one party is now disputing that the contract is not valid, the other is saying it is. Can anyone advise please?

N79

Whether or not the contract is valid rent has been paid in return for occupation - therefore a tenancy exists. At the minimum, provided the rent is below GBP25000 per year, an AST exists which is now a statuory periodic tenancy.

What is the problem which has arrisen? Without this it is not possible to give a further opinion.

iglepiggle

thanks for the reply - the issue is that the 2008 renewal AST contract specifies deposit being required and its subsequent payment into the TDS scheme. rent payment is below 25k per annum.

The tenancy ended earlier this year and there has been a dispute over monies, whereby monies have been retained from the deposit.

So the larger issue is whether the tenant can sue for 3 x, or whether the landlord can claim the contract void.

clutton_2

i cannot imagine a judge allowing a "clerical error" to be evidential in a dispute - if you can prove when you started and when you stopped paying rent (via bank statements) i would have thought that was evidence enough to prove the start and end of a tenancy

how much money are you talkign about in terms of the size of the deposit and the alleged deductions and what are they for ?

did you both sign an inventory on move in ? if so - that will prove the start of the tenancy surely ?

tbs624

So you had renewed for a further Fixed Term, following the expired original AST agreement, signed & dated at the point of renewal and have actually been billed for this renewal?

Presumably what you are saying is that your original deposit was paid prior to the deposit regs coming into force but that it should have been registered on that renewal?

As N79 says there was a tenancy - you had occupation, the LL received rent. The LL presumably wants to use the date error to say it was only a periodic, so no renewal/no deposit reg necessary (or you think he may do)?

IMO given that you have other evidence to back up the fact that the contract *was* intended as a renewal there shouldn't be an issue here.

N79

OP - if you feel that unjust deductions have been made from the deposit then write to your LL requesting proof of the reasons for the deductions or the return of the deposit within 7 days. Mark the letter as a letter before action and make it clear you will make a claim for the deposit in the small claims court. If you are still not satisfied then off to the small claims court you go.

You may as well make a claim for the 3x as well but given that the tenancy is over plus the possible uncertainty (but I agree with the previous posters that the intention of all parties is clear here and a type will not change things) I think you will struggle (but you may get lucky). It is certainly a good negotiating tool to use with the LL, who may want to avoid the expense of defending the claim.

iglepiggle

the tenancy began in 2005, there was an inspection at the start, the tenanancy was renewed every 12 months until 2009. So the inventory does not prove the 2008 contract.

the size of the deposit is roughly £1000.

Deposit was retained for some minor damage that the tenant claimed unfair. The majority of the deposit was repaid 6 weeks after end of tenancy. Tenant still disputes oustanding damage claiming not responsible for entire cost of new replacement due to some pre-existing damage to the item.

iglepiggle

to N79, negotiation was tried, I made a video at the start and end of tenancy which I offered to the Agent. Only when court action was imminent did he drop the false claims. Leaving an item damaged by us, however, item was already damaged (I had video of it), and then of course > 4 years wear and tear. Therefore unreasonable to claim full replacement as this would be betterment. Agency terminated communications and invited me to take him to court. Only found out about TDS recently - when oddly enough trying to explore other avenues before actually taking him to court. It seems to rather fit my case. Agency is retaining money unfairly and against my consent.

The 2008 contract is important as it specifies monies would be paid into the TDS scheme. So it is reasonble for me to assume my monies would be protected in accordance with the law as indicated in the contract. For intents and purposes the deposit would be seen as returned to me and paid into the new scheme.

If the Agency argue that renewals are voluntary for the TDS scheme - and this was accepted. I can then refer to my contract. If the relevent section of the contract were to legally cover me with regards to the law. Then it has been breached, the cover should still be applied.

I've been doing a lot of research - but still far to go.

tbs624

iglepiggle wrote: »

the tenancy began in 2005, there was an inspection at the start, the tenanancy was renewed every 12 months until 2009. So the inventory does not prove the 2008 contract.

It doesn't have to. It would be very unusual for a LL to redo an inventory every time a contract was renewed for a further Fixed Term. It' s the fact that you say you have been billed for (& have paid for) a contract renewal, plus the date alongside your signature on the renewed contract that will help you.

Do you also still have copies of your original FT ASTs or any letters from the LL, sent prior to expiry, which clearly indicate that a new FT was in the offing?

iglepiggle wrote: »

...Deposit was retained for some minor damage that the tenant claimed unfair. The majority of the deposit was repaid 6 weeks after end of tenancy. Tenant still disputes oustanding damage claiming not responsible for entire cost of new replacement due to some pre-existing damage to the item.

. Did the T make it clear that s/he did not accept the partial repyament as being in "full and final settlement"?

Even if there wasn't some pre-existing damage the LL still cannot look to a T to replace an item in full - the age of the item and its expected life span would have to be taken into consideration otherwise the LL will be viewed as seeking "betterment".

tbs624

Should have read this one as well, before responding

iglepiggle wrote: »

Leaving an item damaged by us, however, item was already damaged (I had video of it), and then of course > 4 years wear and tear. Therefore unreasonable to claim full replacement as this would be betterment. Agency terminated communications and invited me to take him to court. Only found out about TDS recently - when oddly enough trying to explore other avenues before actually taking him to court. It seems to rather fit my case. Agency is retaining money unfairly and against my consent.

The 2008 contract is important as it specifies monies would be paid into the TDS scheme. So it is reasonble for me to assume my monies would be protected in accordance with the law as indicated in the contract. For intents and purposes the deposit would be seen as returned to me and paid into the new scheme.

If the Agency argue that renewals are voluntary for the TDS scheme - and this was accepted. I can then refer to my contract. If the relevent section of the contract were to legally cover me with regards to the law. Then it has been breached, the cover should still be applied.

As you've been doing some research , you're probably aware of the case in which a judge held that a tenancy deposit wasn't "received" in the strictest sense at the time of renewal (because the LL already had it in his possession) so did not need to be protected, but it's not a decision that is binding on other courts nor agreed with by others not least because if you are taking out a further FT AST the tenancy agreement will refer to the deposit as part of the terms - the deposit forms part of the contract from that date forward.

Is this LA also the LL of the property, because it is *the LL* who is ultimately responsible for the return of your deposit, rather than the LA.

iglepiggle

I have the majority of the letters and contracts from the Agency and tenant (ok - the tenants me). I have the 2009 renewal contract from the Agent, with supporting letter and invoice for renewal, with a returned letter from Tenant indicating that as he no longer wished to proceed with an AST and wished to continue on a Periodic, contract and fee would not be required.

and from your earlier reply - yes - I think the agent will use the mistaken date on the 2008 against me to attempt to get in the clear.

The agent has already declared the contract void as he does not have a signed copy. In fairness there is some evidence to support the Agency misplaced it. As he billed me for the 2008 contract renewal again in Jan 2009, I checked my records to see if the original cheque had been cashed. It hadnt - so I reissued the cheque with a letter of explanation to this effect. Tenancy ended some 3-4 months later.