A dispute with landlord over return of deposit

N79

dacouch wrote: »

Also do you know if the deposit was in the correct deposit scheme, if you don't know find out about that as well as it will also make a lot of difference

The deposit would only have to have been protected if the tenancy was renewed after 6 April 2007 (EDIT ORIGINAL DATE WRONG - I HAD NOT WOKEN UP YET - and even that is slightly iffy as we have never had a high court ruling on the meaning of paid - some lower courts have held that a renewal does not mean that a deposit needs to be protected).

So this is yet another question that the OP needs to find the answer to!

olly300

paykanti wrote: »

T

She will be taking matters to court btw so I will keep you posted on developments.

If your sister takes it to court she shouldn't mention the tax allowances as that's none of her business.

What should be mentioned is:
1. If there was an inventory given to her at the start of the tenancy
2. The fact she lived in the property 6 years with dates (this will make clear that her deposit is unlikely to be protected)
3. Whether she has records of reporting repairs during the tenancy ( one reason why it's always good to put things in writing)

Sometimes just submitting a concise well written small claims statement is enough for the other party to investigate and find they don't have a valid claim and to pay up to avoid court costs.

G_M

paykanti wrote: »

---

The General Timeline of Events

My sister was a tenant at this property for just over 6 years. So deposit did not need to be protected. It may have been, but probobly wasn't. Hence sister will have to go to Small Claims Court to get deposit back.

Numbers

Cost of two weeks rent due to delay caused by repairing property - £400 Cannot be deducted from deposit. Cost of repairs is allowable, as is unpaid rent. This is not either.

Painting: £1100 Probobly 'fair wear and tear' after 6 years
New garage door: £160 Needed why? Damaged? Who caused the damage?
Carpet and house cleaned (in line with a Cleaning Bond of £150 stated in the tenancy agreement) Ignore the tenancy clause - what was the condition of the carpet at the start as described in the inventory? If no inventory, LL has no proof carpet/house is dirtier than at start
New blinds: Undisclosed Why? damaged by tenant? + see comment above about inventory
Total cost of repairs to reinstate the property to the way it was at start of my sister's tenancy: £1400

Sister's Points

She also thinks she should have been the one to obtain quotations for the repair work - she can certainly argue to a court that the quotes are unreasonable, and offer alternative quotes as evidence, but it is for the LL to get quotes.

She also told me that she should not be held accountable to minor redecoration as 10% of her rent (over £5,000 over the duration of the tenancy) is tax-allowable Irrelevant. The LL's tax affairs are his business, not hers. However, she is not responsible for 'fair wear and tear'.

---

Landlord's Points and Contract Clauses

The landlord claims to have a signed statement from the incoming tenant as to the state of the property prior to redecoration and a statement from the carpet cleaners who expressed dismay at the state of the carpets as well as receipts for all work carried out.This will help the LL in court.

In addition to listed costs by my sister, the landlord states that he maintained British Gas Homecare Cover for all electricity, central heating and plumbing that arose in the property as well as carrying out all repairs at the total cost of £1,800. So what? Irrelevant.

A clause in the contract states the tenant to "keep the premises and contents in and about tidy and clean and in good condition, repair and decorative order" and also that the tenant "yield up the premises at the end of the tenancy in the same clean state and condition as it was at the beginning of the tenancy and make good, pay for the repair of or replace all such items of the fixture, fittings, furniture and effects as shall be broken, lost, damaged or destroyed during the Tenancy, fair wear and tear expected".

The clause in the contract is pretty standard and reflects statute law. The key is : was there an agreed and signed inventory at the start? If not, the LL cannot prove that the tenant did not leave the property "in the same clean state and condition as it was at the beginning of the tenancy" since he cannot prove what the state and condition originally was.

If there was a signed inventory, showing a clean state, then the LL's evidence from the cleaning company, plus any photos he may have of dirty carpets etc, will give him a much stronger case.

bitsandpieces

Were the blinds and paint job new when your sister moved in? Even if so, both would be expected to show some wear after 6 years and LL couldn't reasonably claim for new replacements. Was there damage or just wear?

What happened to the garage door?

tbs624

paykanti wrote: »

It just seems absurd for my sister to be expected to present the property back after 6 years with the exact pristine conditions of the walls and carpets. They may have had a small mark here and there but they were in extremely presentable condition.

Marks on a carpet do *not* come under FW&T if they are stains caused by spills, dirt etc. FW&T would only cover things such as a flattening of the pile due to expected use of the years, fading due to sunlight/passage of time etc.

As the other posters have said, the key thing is what clear evidence the LL has of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy - you mention that the carpeting was new so he will probably have an invoice plus the carpet fitter's say so.If the LL also has an signed inventory and/or good photos your sister is unlikely to come unstuck.

That said, I think many carpet cleaners would "express their dismay" at the state of carpets in a rental if it mean that they got some work out of doing so.;)

It sounds as though the damage to the garage door may have been down to your sister from what you say, so she should expect to have to pay for the damage to be rectified.

If a T damages a LL's property/furnishings they should report it to the LL in writing *and* take dated photos of the damage, keeping them safely with the tenancy agreement etc.

You seem vague about the "walls and blinds"? Yes the LL cannot use a Ts deposit to put himself in a better position that he would otherwise have been after a 6 year rental but if your sister has for example knocked chunks out of painted plastered walls, left greasy marks by using blu/white tack etc or swung on the blinds and left them hanging half off their fixings and/or smeared them with greasy fingerprints etc then she should expect to have to make a contribution. Again this is dependent on what evidence the LL has of their condition at the start of the tenancy.

Edit: LL cannot charge a separate amount for the two weeks "due to repairs being necessary".

N79 has already mentioned the lack of apparent consensus on whether a LL should be obliged to scheme register a tenancy deposit if a pre 6 Apr 07 tenancy is subject to a new Fixed Term after that date but its always worth considering action on that basis. FWIW my own view is that it *should* apply - if deposit is part of the deal for the new FT it has of course effectively been "received" by the LL at that point. Round up of various deposit cases here

OP - you mention that mother has corresponded with the LL and now you are doing the research. Does your sister need a bit of a nudge to take responsibility for resolving her own issues, perhaps with the two of you more in the background?

paykanti

Addressing the points raised above:

There was no inventory taken at the start of the tenancy.

The deposit was no protected.

The garage door's (the back entrance door which resembled a normal room door as opposed to the proper large garage door at the frnt) hinges became loose and the door would not shut properly. Sister believes it was due to exposure to the elements as it was an external unit and not as a direct result of a particular incident.

She does not believe there was any apparent damage done to the blinds or carpets (the latter of which she actually cleaned herself right before leaving the property) and with regards to the walls, there were no dents or chips but rather, minor blemishes. Although two rooms did have some blu-tac marks.

And with regards to my sister's involvement in the dispute, it was a slip of the in the OP as she has carried out all correspondence, not our mother. I only got involved to see whether I could help.

BitterAndTwisted

Minor blemishes and blu-tac marks. That's a pity.

She should compose a letter, head it "Letter Before Action" stating why she disputes the deposit-deductions and tell the landlord that she will file a claim in the Small Claims Court if a reasonable agreement cannot be reached between them. She should send two copies, posted from two different Post Offices and she should retain proof of postage for both for later in court.

She needs to decide what a fair deductions would be for these "minor blemishes and blu-tac marks" bearing in mind that they would most likely necessitate complete redecoration of each room, rather than just the walls they are on and then try and settle with the landlord.

If she goes to the small claims court I don't think she'd get anywhere by disputing all of the deductions.

Did she report the damage of the door to the landlord in writing or just leave it to be discovered by the landlord when she vacated?

paykanti

She's had talks with the landlord over written letters and they've been unable to come to an agreement so she's filed for the claim and the landlord has provided the defence and a counterclaim to recover the expenses which went beyond the deposit as outlined above. She's disputing all the deductions which as you say, I would also have not done but we'll have to see what happens.

The garage door was reported three months prior to her departure to which the landlord did nothing about it. The landlord claims that due to my sister notifying him that she would be leaving in the near future, he thought he would wait and attend to the matter after her departure.

tbs624

paykanti wrote: »

Addressing the points raised above:

There was no inventory taken at the start of the tenancy.

Foolish LL: he may however be able to offer other forms of proof of condition from the start as previously mentioned.

paykanti wrote: »

The deposit was no protected.

So did your sister sign up for a further Fixed term (post 6 Apr 2007) after the original Fixed Term had expired? Or did her tenancy continue under what is called a statutory periodic tenancy running from month to month? ( if rent paid monthly)

paykanti wrote: »

The garage door's (the back entrance door which resembled a normal room door as opposed to the proper large garage door at the frnt) hinges became loose and the door would not shut properly. Sister believes it was due to exposure to the elements as it was an external unit and not as a direct result of a particular incident.

Could sister not have taken a screwdriver to the hinges and tightened them up before it became a major problem?

paykanti wrote: »

She does not believe there was any apparent damage done to the blinds or carpets (the latter of which she actually cleaned herself right before leaving the property) and with regards to the walls, there were no dents or chips but rather, minor blemishes. Although two rooms did have some blu-tac marks.

You said earlier that stains were visible on the carpet, presumably after your sister had tried to clean it?

Blu/white tac is an absolute pain on painted walls - it tends to leave a greasy residue which will show through again if just painted over with standard emulsion. You have to use a specific primer to cover the walls first and that adds to the costs - if it's done purely over the marked areas , those parts tend to "flash" through the topcoat of emulsion. The LL would of course be due to re-emulsion anyway, so can't seek the whole cost from your sister even if he could show that the marks were likely to be down to her.

They main thing is still whether the LL can adequately demonstrate the property's condition at the start and that any damage/stains were likely to be down to your sister's acts or omissions. Plus the possibility that the deposit *ought* to have been scheme registered but hasn't been.

princeofpounds

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a landlord is only allowed to claim depreciated costs, as betterment is not allowed.

That means that if a carpet was new at the beginning, and then ruined, he is not entitled to a new carpet. He is entitled to a 6-year old carpet, not that you would ever find and fit one.

Practically speaking, what should happen is that the court should consider that a carpet might have a life of, say, 12 years and award half the cost of a carpet. Just another point to make if you get onto the topic of how much reimbursement is due, although your first defence should always be that you caused no damage, if that is indeed true.