landlord problems keeping my deposit

tbs624

JohnLa wrote: »

I agree with may_fair he has to provide evidence. Could someone help me with my query I recently ended a tenancy with a landlord he gave us 3 months to move out as he wanted to sell the flat my partner and I was renting. Which we were ok about because he gave more than enough legal notice and my partner and I were not happy about the flat anyway. The intial 6 months had only just passed after this notice but there are communication problems as he rented the flat via agentcy which begins with an M. Two months on now we still haven't recieved our desposit back we are not aware of any disputes because the lanlord won't repsond to the agentcy about the amount to be paid. We put a single cliam in a week ago if the landlord or agentcy doesn't we will automatically get out money back and is it 14 days they have to respond.

Thanks

Welcome to MSE as a newbie

You may find it best to start a new thread of your own (see button up at top left from main HBRenting & selling Board. If there is more than one person's query in a thread responses can soon become muddled.

sk240

I had a similar problem when i moved out of a rented property, it was in the same condition as it was when we moved in (probably better in fact) its just another way of the landlords screwing more money from you in afraid! seems to be common practice amongst thieves.
A couple of month later when i was walking past i saw that the landlord had totally redone the place (probably would not have done it if we had stayed i bet) so thats where my money went then:mad:

garfield33

may_fair wrote: »

No. There was a Court of Appeal judgment earlier this month which ruled that T cannot claim after the tenancy has ended.

Quoting from the report on the Nearly Legal blog:
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/05/eviscerated-now-also-drawn-and-quartered/

Wow I hadn't heard about this.

It seems unfair to tenants who have been assured that their deposit is protected (or who assumed it was, which isn't wise, but it happens), then when they move out and discover that it wasn't protected, there's nothing they can do about it.

So the only time you can take your landlord to court for non-protection is when you are their current tenant, and I imagine that this doesn't do wonders for the tenant-landlord relationship...!

What about tenants who have to leave due to bad landlords - they have the choice of staying with the bad landlord in order to get the deposit protected, or getting out and cutting their losses.

If I have misunderstood please do correct me.

And I'm not saying all landlords are bad and all tenants are saints. I'm just saying bad things do happen. My current landlord is great.

Turnbull2000

garfield33 wrote: »

Wow I hadn't heard about this.

It seems unfair to tenants who have been assured that their deposit is protected (or who assumed it was, which isn't wise, but it happens), then when they move out and discover that it wasn't protected, there's nothing they can do about it.

So the only time you can take your landlord to court for non-protection is when you are their current tenant, and I imagine that this doesn't do wonders for the tenant-landlord relationship...!

What about tenants who have to leave due to bad landlords - they have the choice of staying with the bad landlord in order to get the deposit protected, or getting out and cutting their losses.

If I have misunderstood please do correct me.

And I'm not saying all landlords are bad and all tenants are saints. I'm just saying bad things do happen. My current landlord is great.

The law is now essentially worthless in terms of deposits. It's only use to tenants is that S.21 eviction notices are invalid unless the deposit is protected.

G-McDog

tbs624 wrote: »

G-McDog. You were obliged to leave the property in the same condition as when let to you, save for "fair wear and tear" . Note that FW&T does not cover dirt or damage.Google "mydeposits" and "Landlords' guide to fair wear and tear"

In order to successfully claim for any omissions/damage on the T's part the LL will need to produce clear evidence of the condition of the property at the start and the end of tenancy, as may_fair says. Was an inventory completed, signed by both you as T and by your LL or LL's representative?

Did you take photos at the start/end of your tenancy?

Hi, We left the property in better condition than what we found it. We had an inventory which we signed etc, however, it didn't state the condition of the windows, walls etc. It just stated the condition of the items in the flat. Which we left in exactly the same condition to what we found them. We didn't take any pictures at the beginning or at the end as they said everything was ok and they'd send us through our deposit etc.

I am confident that no photo evidence was taken by him at the beginning. He has now (since I decided to argue his claims) taken some photos. But that is months after we left. If he wants to claim against us will he have to produce evidence of the condition of the items? In the inventory the items are described as " condition : good". Which doesn't seem a very specific description as one persons good is another persons amazing!!!

Also, if he broke the terms of our agreement by entering into the flat without our permission does that then negate any agreement between us and any obligation from us to him?

G-McDog

Hi, Quick question. Can a landlord give you back your deposit then sue you to get it back?

Keeping_Positive

He can but for what Ive read he doesnt have enough evidence to win any claim.

prudryden

As I mentioned in your other thread, how can the LL give you back your deposit which esentially says everything is fine, AND then turn around and sue you because he now says everything is not fine? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

nollag2006

Really sorry to read this. Sounds like your landlord is chancing his arm. Have you spoken to your local Citizens Advice Bureau yet?

may_fair

G-McDog wrote: »

Hi, Quick question. Can a landlord give you back your deposit then sue you to get it back?

LL would not be claiming for the deposit but claiming for his alleged losses.