BIG problems with Deposit & Inventory

B123_2

terra_ferma wrote: »

I don't know much about deposits as I don't deal with them, but I know that they can take your/your guarantor to small claims court for rent arrears and they can send the bailiffs.
I don't know if the court would take the dispute about the deposit into account.

All I want to say is don't take for granted that the rent and deposit are part of the same issue.
There is no dispute about the rent, you owe it and that's it.

(I have had problems with deposits too, and have resorted to withhold the last month's rent, so I understand why you did it).

Thanks for info. That is the thing I am worried about! Deposits are a tricky issue it seems...and I don't want my guarantor to be approached in this way, while we are still in discussion. I have never disputed with the agents that we owe the rent arrears. We have asked them on more than one occasion to take it from the deposit. They just refuse to do this.

I am so dubious about paying this back to them, whilst as far as I am concerned there is £1000+ deposit sitting there that they should be using for breaches of our contract inc. rent!

Cheers for the understanding about withholding the rent. You would not believe (or might!) the amount of people have said that all of the tears & agro these agents cause is justified..regardless of the breaches they made!

B123_2

Thanks for everyones help. The contract does has a s.213 notice written into it that states that rent arrears "may" be deducted from deposit. Is that "may" giving them the licence to decide whether they want to take it from the deposit or just claim separately for it?

After speaking to the other tenant again, it appears although he amended the inventory and returned it, he never actually signed it. The original copy which I have (not amended) does not have a designated space for a signature. It was carried out by a private Inventory Clerk from a sepearte company, and states that the report does not reflect the opinion of the LL. It also says that it's not guaranteed and needs to be agreed by both tenant and LL. Would it need to be signed then? Still waiting for the copy we sent back.

I have been told that the check-out inventory, which we also havn't seen, was carried out by the agent. I guess this would reflect the opinion of the agent. So, both parties had to agree on the original inventory, but the agent decides what (and to what magnitude) goes on the final check-out inventory and then we have to dispute this? Seems odd to me that a company is hired to complete the inital impartial inventory, and then the agent can create a seemingly predetermined check-out version? Is this normal practice?

chappers

Unfortunately this common practice.

However the rent and the deposit are seperate issues, you owe the last months rent and whilst they can take unpaid rent from your deposit, they are not obliged too, particularly as they say you owe for damages. Now thats a completely seperate issue and i would advise you to take this up with the TDS.
Have they supplied you with the checkout inventory yet and if not why not.

my personal advice would be to not pay the outsatnding rent and to write to them explaining that you won't until the deposit issue is sorted, I would also state that if they cannot substantiate their claims for damages, that they should return your deposit less the outstanding rent, immediately.Also point out that you have made an appeal to the TDS.

With regard to the rent unfortunately they could take legal action against you or the garauntor, what to do with regards to that is ajudgement call you will have to make between yourselves.

B123_2

Thanks everyone for their advice. It has made a very difficult issue much more bearable. I no longer have any rent arrears. I have since receieved a bill from the LL/Agents for damages which is extortionate. Thousands. This is much much more than the initial estimate, which even then was beyond belief.

The question is now, do we sit tight and wait for them to take further action? I assume that they would have to contact the TDS who hold our deposit, who would then contact us? We have spoken to a solicitor who has advised that we should wait before jumping in. Though rental law is not his speciality.

As the repairs now apparently extend beyond the deposit, can the TDS be involved in this? Or will the difference between the two sums be a court issue?

Fire_Fox

What exactly is so badly damaged that to put it right runs into thousands of pounds? Do you dispute all of the claim?

B123_2

To be honest I am so reluctant to go into too many details given that this is such a public space! Will have every agent in the area having a guess if it's them! There are are charging us for everything..Cleaning(which to be honest I am aware that most LL will charge), paintwork etc. The paintwork is listed as 'touch-ups', I don't really think they can justify this.

However, the major cost is to have the floor in the flat to be replaced. It ran through 2 rooms and one was a large open plan living area. They cited extreme damage to this.

It was clear pretty early on that the wood was very soft, and probably not great quality. There were dents in it already & we were apparently the first ones to habit the place. We took every care possible to ensure that any potential for marks was minimised.We literally tip-toed round the furniture all year to make sure we did not budge anything etc. They also had builders there at one point, and we can't say they did the same!

Really though, any marks that were made were not extreme, and as far as we are concerned are without doubt the result of wear & tear ,which is to be expected,and that the material used is not fit for purpose. But yes £2000 for this. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

We will dispute further if we need to. We have sent a letter. All we have had regarding this is that our letter was "irrelevant" and to pay up.

I am just not sure what happens next? Should we wait?

chappers

They would have to sue you for any further damages over the deposit.
what was their initial claim for when the leaving inventory was taken and does the checkout inventory mention the excessive damage.
I would get straight onto the TDS and lodge a dispute with regards to the deposit, that at least will ensure the process moves along in a timely fashion(notice I didn't say quickly).

What was the floor made of if it is so badly damaged, if it is softwood floorboards then you are right they were not really ever meant to be a finished floor surface and would only require re-finishing and not replacing.To have to replace a wooden floor of any type would involve it being full of holes etc

Colincbayley

Sounds to me like they are really taking the P*SS. I wouldn't do anything else other than to lodge an objection with the DPS then await them taking you to court.

They CAN NOT justify a whole new floor, even if it were damaged, at best it is a sand down and re-varnish.
It is agents/landlords like this that give the rest of us a bad name :mad:

B123_2

chappers wrote: »

what was their initial claim for when the leaving inventory was taken and does the checkout inventory mention the excessive damage.

What was the floor made of if it is so badly damaged, if it is softwood floorboards then you are right they were not really ever meant to be a finished floor surface and would only require re-finishing and not replacing.To have to replace a wooden floor of any type would involve it being full of holes etc

There initial estimate was £500 when they had done the check out inventory. This was completed by the Agent working on behalf of the LL (which really does annoy me).

I have tried to look at the spec for the flat on the internet. The page I have found is pretty old, so I am not sure whether it is up-to-date at all, or indeed whether the materials shown were actually in my flat! However, on there it lists it as Oak engineered floor. It was boarded though, so I would hazard a guess that the whole floor would not need to be replaced, even if they did feel some of it was justified (which it wasn't).

Had the check out inventory back this morning. The marks are mentioned, but they listed it as "Fair condition".

B123_2

Colincbayley wrote: »

Sounds to me like they are really taking the P*SS.

Without a doubt!