Deposit refused on joint tenancy

Uther

Can anyone help with this issue.

I have been in a joint tenancy let with 4 other students and the landlord is refusing to refund my deposit.
The deposit is in a deposit protection scheme but I have been told only the lead tenant has to agree on the amount of the deposit to be returned.

The landlord has given the lead tenant only their full deposit back but refused anything for the other tenants, this appears to be so the lead tenant will agree to release the balance to him.

Do I have any rights here or can he just take my money.?

Thanks

princeofpounds

Unfortunately the lead tenant does have a lot of power when it comes to deposits. They receive the deposit and they can negotiate settlements, I believe. Which causes a big problem if they aren't on the same side as the other tenants.

There is still a small claims court route open to you, but it is hard to say whether you should be suing the LL for your deposit or your lead tenant for breaking an agreement between all tenants. I haven't come across this exact problem before and it probably depends on exactly how this pans out.

Why would the lead tenant acquiesce to such a scummy deal? And would the united opposition of the other housemates change their mind?

Does the lead tenant realise that getting only his deposit back means he will face 4 small claims court actions to take away 80% of what he recovered? Because in the absence of other agreements courts usually assume all recovered money to be split across all tenants. Might focus his/her thoughts.

Uther

The lead tenant is assuming they will keep all their deposit, which is probably true because it's probably costs more than the deposit to take them to court over it.

It is a little more complex because 2 of the tenants on the deposit scheme moved out a while ago, and received their deposit from the landlord as cash (ie not from the deposit scheme)

2 other people moved it to replace them but were not added to the deposit scheme.

So only 2 other tenants are interested.

princeofpounds

it's probably costs more than the deposit to take them to court over it.

Well it might be time to inform them that the court costs get added onto the loser's bill. And a CCJ will ruin their credit record for 6 years.

It is a little more complex because 2 of the tenants on the deposit scheme moved out a while ago, and received their deposit from the landlord as cash (ie not from the deposit scheme)

2 other people moved it to replace them but were not added to the deposit scheme.

It sounds like the new people didn't pay deposits then? The fact that the LL paid the deposit in cash really doesn't change anything as far as the protected deposit is concerned, that should all still be returned (minus legitimate claims) to the lead tenant.

Uther

princeofpounds wrote: »

It sounds like the new people didn't pay deposits then?

Yes they did, it just wasn't added to the schem