Tenancy agreement and deposit

Fire_Fox

Write to the landlord politely asking which scheme your deposit is lodged with and whether any changes need to be made due to cutting the letting agency out of the equation, to me that is a gentle nudge in the right direction. He then either has the choice to lodge quickly or tell you the deposit isn't lodged in which case you can helpfully inform him of the 2007 legislation. Even tho your landlord is a friend, I would suggest you cover yourself by having a written record of every contact, e-mail would do at a push.

Santiago1_2

Regarding the Painsmith's case referred to above, the link provided has confused me. The court decision seems to suggest that the LA is liable but it is not liable for paying back the 'standard' 3xdeposit penalty?? I am not very good with legal-speak so if somebody has a more clear understanding, please advise.

Many thanks

Santiago1_2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Write to the landlord politely asking which scheme your deposit is lodged with and whether any changes need to be made due to cutting the letting agency out of the equation, to me that is a gentle nudge in the right direction. He then either has the choice to lodge quickly or tell you the deposit isn't lodged in which case you can helpfully inform him of the 2007 legislation. Even tho your landlord is a friend, I would suggest you cover yourself by having a written record of every contact, e-mail would do at a push.

This is sound advice but sounds a bit...weird. The landlord is a very 'plain' man (this is meant in the nicest possible way). He doesn't 'do' letters or emails. As I wrote above, he may hardly know the legalities of deposit schemes. He hires the agency to take care of issues so he may simply collect the rent at the beginning of each month.

I am not saying that he has no responsibility or that ignorance can be an acceptable excuse. But sending a letter would be very strange ('heavy-handed'?) to him. I think I should give him a ring and tell him that I cannot find the deposit lodged with any scheme.

Just to point out that I do not want anybody to be penalised (especially the landlord) neither do I want to make a 'profit' from someone's negligence as I have not been really affected (and if the LA gets out of the way I would get my deposit back and have a nice direct tenancy agreement with a landlord I like). It is just an unusual situation for me.

<sebb>

Santiago1 wrote: »

This is sound advice but sounds a bit...weird. The landlord is a very 'plain' man (this is meant in the nicest possible way). He doesn't 'do' letters or emails. As I wrote above, he may hardly know the legalities of deposit schemes. He hires the agency to take care of issues so he may simply collect the rent at the beginning of each month.

If that is really the case, and the landlord isnt aware of his basic responsibilities as a landlord, then maybe its not a great idea to get the letting agents (who should know what they are doing) out the picture and leave him to it.

That being said, the LAs dont seem to have added much if they havent made sure he protected your deposit.

Santiago1_2

<sebb> wrote: »

If that is really the case, and the landlord isnt aware of his basic responsibilities as a landlord, then maybe its not a great idea to get the letting agents (who should know what they are doing) out the picture and leave him to it.

That being said, the LAs dont seem to have added much if they havent made sure he protected your deposit.

Fair point, but between the two of them, the LL has always 'delivered'. Thisngs are fixed within hours, he has never disrupted my 'quite enjoyment' of the house - but I do try to keep the place in very good order. On the otehr hand, the LA only sends tenancy agreement renewal documents, relays requests for assistance (to the LL) with delay, and occasionally ignores requests for help to the point that I have to contact the LL directly and have things sorted very quickly.

I cannot predict the future but I cannot see why things could turn sour with the LL in the future if I had a tenancy agreement directly with him.

Fire_Fox

Santiago1 wrote: »

This is sound advice but sounds a bit...weird. The landlord is a very 'plain' man (this is meant in the nicest possible way). He doesn't 'do' letters or emails. As I wrote above, he may hardly know the legalities of deposit schemes. He hires the agency to take care of issues so he may simply collect the rent at the beginning of each month.

I am not saying that he has no responsibility or that ignorance can be an acceptable excuse. But sending a letter would be very strange ('heavy-handed'?) to him. I think I should give him a ring and tell him that I cannot find the deposit lodged with any scheme.

Just to point out that I do not want anybody to be penalised (especially the landlord) neither do I want to make a 'profit' from someone's negligence as I have not been really affected (and if the LA gets out of the way I would get my deposit back and have a nice direct tenancy agreement with a landlord I like). It is just an unusual situation for me.

If you want to be a little more straight up, then I'd say to your landlord you had been told the deposit needs to be moved when the letting agent is ousted. So you thought you'd helpfully find out what the process was ... and your deposit isn't lodged. Would he mind sorting that out, here are the contact details of the three schemes. Giving contact details is an excuse to put it into writing as it's hard work reading out the numbers over the phone! A handwritten note is always more casual/ personal than a typed one.

I understand what you are saying about the man's style, but if there is a deposit dispute then you are leaving yourself wide open to having zero proof at all of the condition of the property and any reports you made of repairs needing doing. This guy is amateur - he may think that wear and tear are your responsibility and that he can have new-for-old. It's your call how you play this but we will not be able to help you if you have opted for verbal communication throughout the tenancy.

If you have gas in the property you may also wish to check you have a safety certificate, and help the landlord to rectify this if not.

Santiago1_2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

If you want to be a little more straight up, then I'd say to your landlord you had been told the deposit needs to be moved when the letting agent is ousted. So you thought you'd helpfully find out what the process was ... and your deposit isn't lodged. Would he mind sorting that out, here are the contact details of the three schemes. Giving contact details is an excuse to put it into writing as it's hard work reading out the numbers over the phone! A handwritten note is always more casual/ personal than a typed one.

I understand what you are saying about the man's style, but if there is a deposit dispute then you are leaving yourself wide open to having zero proof at all of the condition of the property and any reports you made of repairs needing doing. This guy is amateur - he may think that wear and tear are your responsibility and that he can have new-for-old. It's your call how you play this but we will not be able to help you if you have opted for verbal communication throughout the tenancy.

If you have gas in the property you may also wish to check you have a safety certificate, and help the landlord to rectify this if not.

Thanks for the suggestions. I would not call him an amateur - he has been letting several properties, possible for more than 20 years. But again, I cannot be sure about his grasp of the legalities of the desposit schemes...Perhaps he knows how complicated things can be, so he prefers having a LA dealing with these issues...

Anyway, I would prefer to contact him on the phone and if necessary to follw this up by letter as a backup...

casper_g

Santiago1 wrote: »

I have been renting a house for a few years now...

Given that this is a tenancy that has been running continuously for several years, and the legislation only applies to deposits taken since 6th April 2007, a little more information is required to determine whether there was a requirement for the deposit to be lodged with a scheme. When exactly did the tenancy start? And when was the deposit paid?

Santiago1_2

casper_g wrote: »

Given that this is a tenancy that has been running continuously for several years, and the legislation only applies to deposits taken since 6th April 2007, a little more information is required to determine whether there was a requirement for the deposit to be lodged with a scheme. When exactly did the tenancy start? And when was the deposit paid?

Autumn 2007. The AST papers from the very beginning state that the deposit will be lodged with a specific one of the three schemes

Sorry for not clarifying this earlier (didn't know it could make any difference)

Jac_Raven

A small point, but it should be worth remembering that if the annual rent exceeds £25k then it wouldn't be an AST and deposits don't need to be protected.

Also you may find out that if you try and cut the agents out of the picture they may sue him for the renewal commission anyway. You may need to see the contract he originally signed with them. Whilst the recent Foxton's case did discuss renewal fees, i think the only conclusion was fees that are hidden within the contract and not made clar are unfair, not the fees themselves.

As others have pointed out, there are many reasons why something may suddenly turn sour, and its better to have yourself protected. Also if he has several properties let out I'm not sure he could really be described as a amateur landlord.