Returning deposit issues advice please....

superdupermummy

Hi
My partner rented a house from his friend, I'm not sure the legalities of it all, but I think he signed a contract about 20 montsh ago, for 12 months. He paid a deposit of £575 a months rent back then. After about a year of renting, the landlord, his friend, moved in with him as he split with his girlfriend and stayed for about 6 months. Then the landlord moved out and I moved in. This was only in March.
I got the rent down to 520 as 575 was too high for the local area and in fact the same houses on the street were going for 495 fully furnished.
Last week we told him that we were moving out, we have got a much bigger place in a much nicer area for the same costs. When we told him he said that he would give my partner his deposit back and I asked if we could pay the final month's rent with that deposit as we needed to find a months rent and a months deposit for the new place and that would sort it out for us.
He agreed to this, so we went ahead and sorted out the new place with the new landlady. Then 3 days later my partner recieves a text saying that that wasn't possible as he needs to check the property over once we have moved out, bear in mind he has only been moved out 4 months.
Can he go back on this as now this screws us up with the new place and we have agreed to everything already?
I know that he doesn't have to let us do that but he did agree and he was living in the property for quite a while, and not letting my partner do stuff, like have guests over and stuff.
Any ideas?
We've got to get back to him today...
Thanks
xxxx

sequence

Ignore him and don't pay last months rent. Sound like the wrong kind of person to be holding your deposit. It is protected?

And what is he doing moving into a tenanted property ? Accidental landlord ? Not to be trusted!

N79

Clearly the original tenancy ended when the LL took up residence (surrender by operation of the law).

Has the LL moved out officially and do you have something in writing? If so then a new tenancy was created you may want to consider not rocking the boat as you are in a 6 month fixed term and hence will owe rent until September.

Otherwise, if the LL is still resident at the property then you are lodgers and hence have few rights and your deposit does not need to be protected. You will need to give them a week or so to decide if they want to make any deductions and if you disagree then you will need to take your former LL to court.

superdupermummy

The landlord moved out in March, but nothing has been signed or written or informed since the inital tennancy was taken out.

I'm concerned that he has stated that he will be checking the property for any reason to take monies off the deposit except the spare room, which he was in. But he lived in the whole house, not just in the spare room. There is nothing wrong with the house, in fact we actually filled some holes in the wall and painted over them which he had made.

Just when you think you are starting to get somewhere something always crops up to mess you up. I really don't want to lose the new place and don't wanna mess up the new landlady, who is very staight down the line.

Arrgggghhhhh!

sequence

Keep the rent, you'll regret it if you don't

BitterAndTwisted

I'd take a gamble on the fact that this landlord "friend" has little idea about what the legal requirements are for renting a property.

Was there a dual-signed check-in and inventory at the start of the tenancy? If not, no deductions can be made as there is no proof that any damage was caused during the tenancy.

Was the deposit lodged with one of the tenancy-deposit schemes? This is a legal requirement and your "friend" may not be aware of that.

No landlord has an absolute right to enter a property without the tenant's explicit agreement, so when moving in I think they should have released you from the original agreement which I doubt they did.

In your position I would definitely not pay the last month's rent and tell him to whistle for any costs for damage if you're confident that there was none. I think he's in a very, very weak position indeed.

superdupermummy

Thanks muchly.

All advice is much appreciated as usual!
xxxx

N79

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I'd take a gamble on the fact that this landlord "friend" has little idea about what the legal requirements are for renting a property.

Was there a dual-signed check-in and inventory at the start of the tenancy? If not, no deductions can be made as there is no proof that any damage was caused during the tenancy.

Without such an inventory (which does not need to be signed by the LL) then it will be very hard for any deductions to be made as the LL will have to use some other sort of proof of the condition of the property. It is not impossible.

Was the deposit lodged with one of the tenancy-deposit schemes? This is a legal requirement and your "friend" may not be aware of that.

While initially the deposit should have been registered, there is now, I believe, sufficient doubt over the Ts status. If T is a tenant then deposit should be registered but this means that T has a fixed term to Sept and hence owes rent until Sept. If T is a lodger then deposit does not need to be registered anymore.

No landlord has an absolute right to enter a property without the tenant's explicit agreement, so when moving in I think they should have released you from the original agreement which I doubt they did.

Since the T did not object to the LL moving in then clearly the original agreement ended. An AST can not have a resident LL. The T was released from the original agreement by the actions of the LL in moving in and the T in agreeing to the situation. There is no requirement for either the LL or T to formally sign any document to end the tenancy. The process in this case is called "surrender by operation of the law" as opposed to "surrender by agreement" (really a deed of surrender).

In your position I would definitely not pay the last month's rent and tell him to whistle for any costs for damage if you're confident that there was none. I think he's in a very, very weak position indeed.

I'm not going to recommend this as so far there is no indication that the LL has acted contrary to the law, only that they have acted in an unprofessional and casual manner. But then LL and T were friends so maybe both parties were happy with this casual manner in the mistaken belief that their friendship would help resolve disputes (a classic example of why not to let to friends informally). The problem is, of course, that with an unprotected deposit (and a strong question mark over whether it needs to be protected - especially when the OP second posts implies that the LL is still using the spare room) then the T will have to go to court to reclaim any deductions they disagree with.

Only the OP can read what the situation is but if they are still lodgers then the LL is entitled to their rent and is entitled to make any fair and reasonable deductions from the deposit - and of course the T has the right to go to court to argue against those deductions.