Damage Deposit & Rent Arrears

tbs624

hbk619 wrote: »

So my point was use the deposit to cover the rent debt and pay the OP's mates back at an easier rate and take them to whoever the deposits registered with about the repairs as it seems they L/EA hasn't handled it properly.

If the rent arrears are cleared via the deposit (assuming that tenancy agreement/deposit terms allow for that and all Ts agree) then

(a) the LL can still pursue the Ts to court for dilapidations,possibly ending in CCJs ( with a larger debt to include court costs) for all Ts and

(b) our OP will still owe his mates for the outstanding rent ( & why should they give him an interest free banking facility when they paid their way during the tenancy)

The OP looks to me to be dumping on everyone around him, and your suggestion seems to add to that.

ztan

If your arrears continue to go unpaid, then a landlord does that the right to retain your deposit in recovery of arrears.

I have to be honest, if I were you, I'd be grateful that I hadn't been evicted for not paying my rent, as opposed to kicking up a stink about damage charges.

If your deposit is held in TDPS then it will have no bearing on your rent (unless it's taken to cover the outstanding amounts) I'm suprised they're willing to refund it at all.

I would strongly recommend paying some more of your arrears and sharpish- as the above poster has stated you could find yourself with a CCJ against your name, and you could also be ruining the credit ratings of your mates who did pay their rent.

chris_phil

Thanks for the help

joanna_johnson

By law the deposit has to be submitted into one of the deposit schemes...was yours? I would check this first of all and if it was, which one? The DPS work in a way that the deposit cannot be used without the tenants agreeing to it. The agent/LL cannot use the deposit as it has to be 'claimed through the dps and ID numbers are required. The TDS is a bit different - the tenants have 2 weeks (I think) to object to the bond being used. If they do not, then it is assumed ok for the agent/LL to use it.
A bond on a property is meant to be used to cover dilapidations. If there are rent arrears then the bond can be used AFTER the dilapidations are sorted.
On a tenancy agreement with several tenants then your landlord is correct in that all parties are 'joint and severally' responsible. This means that if one of you is a bad payer, the others suffer!!!

SquatNow

In an attempt to address the OPs question:

Have you been send a copy of the check-out inventory? Was one done? If one was done you are entitled to a copy.

If one wasn't done, then there can be NO deduction from your damages deposit for damages. ZERO.

In addition the landlord cannot obtain betterment. He can't demand money to return the house to a better condition than it would have been in after normal use during the rental period.

Also, items are deemed to reduce in value as they get older. Items of furniture of 4 years old also cannot be claimed for under damages. Carpets also have a "life" of I think 5 years, after which you could tear them into 1cm squares and the landlord can't claim for them as they are considered to be end-of-life. Redecoration can only be claimed for if the building has received damage beyond what would be expected from normal use. Paint chips and wear marks on the walls near doors for example could not be claimed, but if you spraypainted a wall with writing that could. Small nail holes from the hanging of pictures could not be claimed despite what landlords like to claim. Neither could the redecoration of a room after you have repainted it if you painted it in neutral colours, unless there was expensive patterned wallpaper.

clutton_2

""A bond on a property is meant to be used to cover dilapidations. If there are rent arrears then the bond can be used AFTER the dilapidations are sorted. ""

not necessarily the case.. initially the deposit will cover whatever the AST says it is to be used for... if it is not specified, then the LL is perfectly legally entitled to claim deductions from th edeposit for "breaches of tenancy agreement" - ie - anything which he alleges the tenant has done in contravention of the AST - including not paying rent and damage

it is up to the judge to decide which claim (rent and/or damage) is granted


Mydeposits arbiters have fairly recently issued guidelines as to what is fair wear and tear.....

"" Items of furniture of 4 years old also cannot be claimed for under damages." - says who ? If a substandial and expensive piece of furniture is provided which has say, a self life of say 10 years and the tenant destroys it after 4 years, i would hope a judge/arbiter might wish to award 60% of original price less 4 times annual wear and tear costs


""Carpets also have a "life" of I think 5 years, "" - this will depend on the quality and cost of the carpet.... many expensive carpets have a shelf life of 20 years of more..... The LL clearly would need to produce his receipts showing the purchase price and the date....

Paint chips are damage - as are picture hooks holes .... in my view

tbs624

SquatNow wrote: »

In an attempt to address the OPs question:

Have you been send a copy of the check-out inventory? Was one done? If one was done you are entitled to a copy.

If one wasn't done, then there can be NO deduction from your damages deposit for damages. ZERO.

Squat, you're right that the LL would be disadvantaged without an adequate inventory , although not necessarily to the point of zero and you are right about betterment

However, the OP and one other T are complicating matters for their fellow house mates because they have run up rent arrears for which the LL can claim against them all. So, even if no damage deductions, deposit for each of them could be swallowed up

The OP has said nothing about whether the deposit is scheme registered


Clutton says : "many expensive carpets have a shelf life of 20 years of more..... The LL clearly would need to produce his receipts showing the purchase price and the date....

The LL who puts "expensive" carpets, expected to last "20 years", into a shared rental property would be a rare creature...probably one who was a tad inexperienced.

SquatNow

clutton wrote: »

"" Items of furniture of 4 years old also cannot be claimed for under damages." - says who ? If a substandial and expensive piece of furniture is provided which has say, a self life of say 10 years and the tenant destroys it after 4 years, i would hope a judge/arbiter might wish to award 60% of original price less 4 times annual wear and tear costs

IIRC there is an explicit LAW on this. If theitem is unusuable and needs replacing the LL can bill the tennant a %age of the original value based upon the age of the item. After 4 years the item is deemed to have no value. The LL can be asked to provide receipts.

clutton wrote: »

""Carpets also have a "life" of I think 5 years, "" - this will depend on the quality and cost of the carpet.... many expensive carpets have a shelf life of 20 years of more..... The LL clearly would need to produce his receipts showing the purchase price and the date....

Ignoring your use if the term "shelf life" which is the time something stays usable when stored but NOT used... {sigh} yes carpets will have a lifespan based upon the quality, but also on the location. No matter how good the quality of the hall carpet, if it get worn and marked next to the front door, it can't be claimed, as this would be expected as wear and tear. On the other hand if a carpet that is visible in otherwise good condition has a pot of paint slipped on it, then a percentage of it's value could be claimed.

Either way maximum life or carpets is no-where near 20 years and such a claim would be frankly ridiculous... I beleive the law says something less than 10 years, but it all depends on the quality of carpet and nature of the damage.

clutton wrote: »

Paint chips are damage - as are picture hooks holes .... in my view

It would depend on how bad the paint chips were. If they were of the nature as would be expected from someone living in a house for a year, then no, they wouldn't be claimable.

As for holes in walls it would depend. A few small neat holes from carefully hung pictures would not be claimable... the landlord couldn't claim they effected the ability of the property to be lived in. If the tennant turned it onto a seive or left huge unsightly holes then the landlord could charge to have them filled and the individual WALL redecorated.... they could insist on replastering or the whole room being repainted. It's all about reasonableness.

Some Landlords make excessive claims, some tennants choose to pay. Ultimately if it goes to court the judge will use the law... 4 year old table = zero value. Judges don't allow for it being a really nice expensive table, if it was that good you shouln't have put it in the house in the first place.

clutton_2

please quote us a court case in which judgement included this "4 year rule" on the life of furniture

clearly you h ave never bought, seen or used Axminster, or pur wool, hand-made Arab rugs... 20- years life span is well within their capabilities...