Private rental: did I scare too easily?

Flowers23

Hi Everyone

I'm looking for some thoughts on what others would have done in my situation.

I viewed a very nice flat today rented out by a private landlord who is going to Australia. The majority of her belongings will be left in the flat. I enquired about whether she would be protecting my deposit and she said no - that she had rented the flat on and off for 10 years with no problems without protecting the bond and she had no intention of starting now.

After thinking for a bit, I turned down the flat as I felt uneasy but now I am wondering if this is usual and I was too easily scared off? I was also concerned about maintenance etc while she was abroad - some of the appliances were very ancient!

Is this normal behaviour by a private landlord?

Thanks

Werdnal

Deposit protection is law. You were right to be wary as if LL is that casual about their legal obligations, it begs the question what else they would cut corners with!

Perhaps you could have pointed out that it was a legal requirement, rather than walk away. Depends on how keen you were on the flat.

Beware overseas LLs though. Unless they make their own arrangements, it is also a requirement for tenant to retain a portion of their rent to pay the LL's tax bill!

BitterAndTwisted

No, it's not normal. Or legal. But some people are just determined to do things their way even though there may be risks and they just don't care. And care even less when they're thousands of miles away. I think you did the right thing....

Flowers23

Werdnal wrote: »

Deposit protection is law. You were right to be wary as if LL is that casual about their legal obligations, it begs the question what else they would cut corners with!

Perhaps you could have pointed out that it was a legal requirement, rather than walk away. Depends on how keen you were on the flat.

Beware overseas LLs though. Unless they make their own arrangements, it is also a requirement for tenant to retain a portion of their rent to pay the LL's tax bill!

I mentioned that it was the law and she got a bit shirty with me! Seemed to be offended that I wouldn't trust her. Having only just met her, I had a funny feeling when I thought about handing over the 1000 pound deposit.

I asked about the tax issue too - she said she had a letter from HMRC to say she was entitled to receive rent without paying tax - does this sound plausible? At least I will know if a similar issue crops up again.

Flowers23

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

No, it's not normal. Or legal. But some people are just determined to do things their way even though there may be risks and they just don't care. And care even less when they're thousands of miles away. I think you did the right thing....

Thank you.
Sometimes you have to trust your gut feeling I guess

Ulfar

Lucky escape for you.

It is law that she protects the deposit and pays tax.

franklee

"I asked about the tax issue too - she said she had a letter from HMRC to say she was entitled to receive rent without paying tax - does this sound plausible? At least I will know if a similar issue crops up again. "

Well not quite, she may have a letter saying her tenant or agent doesn't have to deduct tax from the rent, which is all you want really, but if I came across this I'd be asking to see the letter and ringing up to confirm with HMRC.

Details of the non resident landlords scheme here:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cnr/nr_landlords.htm

You did the right thing walking away. You don't want a landlord who gets shirty over such a basic request as wanting your deposit protected. Just think how bad she'll be over repairs to those ancient appliances, gas safety or giving you proper notice etc. Really you do not want a landlord prepared to flout the law (even if it is toothless).

Stay well clear IMO.

cluons

You could of course use the law to your advantage:

"If the court is satisfied that the landlord has not used a scheme to protect the deposit ... In addition, the court must also order the landlord to pay the tenant three times the deposit within 14 days of making the order."

Werdnal

cluons wrote: »

You could of course use the law to your advantage:

"If the court is satisfied that the landlord has not used a scheme to protect the deposit ... In addition, the court must also order the landlord to pay the tenant three times the deposit within 14 days of making the order."

No longer true! Several court cases recently have failed to uphold the deposit protection 3x penalty, so not worth paper it was written on. The law is an !!!

The only point in the tenant's favour, if LL fails to protect, would be that any S21 notice would be invalid if at the point of its issue, the deposit was not in a scheme. However, it has also been proved recently, that LL only needs to protect the deposit at any time before the S21 is issued, to overrule this requirement.

DVardysShadow

Werdnal wrote: »

No longer true!

Still true. But so closely circumscribed as not to be useful usually. In this case, with the LL in Australia, I think circumstances would be favourable for such a claim to proceed.

G_M

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Still true. But so closely circumscribed as not to be useful usually. In this case, with the LL in Australia, I think circumstances would be favourable for such a claim to proceed.

There again, with the LL in Australia, even if the claim succeeded would the money be forthcoming...?