Rent arrears

theartfullodger

I disagree re. deposit. The deposit is the tenants money, not the landlords. Landlord may choose to use it for unpaid rent & dilapidations but if there is dispute re. deposit & the adjudicator or the courts decide the tenant should get it back it makes f**** all difference what was in the AST..

And, OFT guidance (yes, we know, guidance not law...) says some typical AST clauses on using deposit are unfair...

Cheers!

Lodger

clutton_2

since the deposit protection services came in , i have amended by ASTs by clearly stating exactly what the deposit monies cover - if the LL and tenant both agree it is for unpaid rent, dilapidations (less W&T allowance); other tenancy breaches; or reimbursement for marketing fees due to early departure - then that it what it can be used for - providing it can be shown that the tenant understands what they signed....... i get a special signature for this part of my AST now.

theartfullodger

... i get a special signature for this part of my AST now.

- all very sensible but, as I'm sure you know, any clause in an AST agreed to by both parties may still be unlawful (eg tenant agreeing to give 2 months notice to quit on a monthly rent payment).. Guess Clutton will only find out if&when it gets to court/adjudication. Until then chances are most tenants will assume the clause is correct...

Cheers!

Lodger

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

since the deposit protection services came in , i have amended by ASTs by clearly stating exactly what the deposit monies cover - if the LL and tenant both agree it is for unpaid rent, dilapidations (less W&T allowance); other tenancy breaches; or reimbursement for marketing fees due to early departure - then that it what it can be used for - providing it can be shown that the tenant understands what they signed....... i get a special signature for this part of my AST now.

Am not sure if you're "muddying" the thread here Clutton? No-one is saying that a tenancy deposit held by a LL cannot be used to pay rent that is owed under the tenancy agreement etc, but rather that a LL is running a huge risk to take "no deposit" but instead take a sum which s/he deems to be "advance rent", so that s/he doesn't have to deal with tenancy deposit regs.

As many of us (you included) have said on here time and time again, you cannot over-ride the tenants rights under law by simply slapping a clause in your tenancy agreement.

Artful is right in that LLs may find their efforts on this one held up to scrutiny in court, and find that they have made a very expensive mistake indeed.

Just take the deposit and get it registered folks - can be done online. What *is* the problem with LLs and this one?