end of tenancy dispute

BitterAndTwisted

Your landlord is a numpty who doesn't know the first thing about what he is doing. Or rather, is attempting to do. Write your letter as advised and tell him that he is not entitled to charge you for betterment, as he will find out if and when he tries to take you to court.

jjlandlord

chappers wrote: »

2) he has not protected your deposit as required by law and so will equally have no legal claim to any of it

Whether the deposit was protected or not is irrelevant with respect to any deductions claim: The landlord is entitled to seek compensation if the tenant caused damage beyond fair wear and tear.

chappers

jjlandlord wrote: »

Whether the deposit was protected or not is irrelevant with respect to any deductions claim: The landlord is entitled to seek compensation if the tenant caused damage beyond fair wear and tear.

Whilst it is true that the LL can seek compensation beyond wear and tear, that is a completely seperate issue.
If the deposit is not protected and the tenant takes the LL to court over this, the court will order that either that the deposit is protected or that it is returned to the tenant and in the case of the tenancy being concluded, the deposit cannot be protected and so has to be returned in full to the tenant.

BitterAndTwisted

Chappers you are talking guff! A tenant is not entitled to the return of all of the deposit just because the landlord has not protected it where there is provable dirt or damage. That is a justifiable deduction and the protection of the deposit is not relevant.

chappers

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Chappers you are talking guff! A tenant is not entitled to the return of all of the deposit just because the landlord has not protected it where there is provable dirt or damage. That is a justifiable deduction and the protection of the deposit is not relevant.

It is not guff!!

If a tenant takes his LL to court for non protection of deposit the LL will be ordered to either protect the deposit or return it to the tenant and as none of the deposit schemes will protect a deposit after the conclusion of a tenancy it must be returned to the tenant.

If however the LL wishes to take the tenant to court for damages then that is a seperate issue and case.

BitterAndTwisted

I disagree. Got any references you can link to to confirm your (erroneous) position?

jjlandlord

chappers wrote: »

If a tenant takes his LL to court for non protection of deposit the LL will be ordered to either protect the deposit or return it to the tenant and as none of the deposit schemes will protect a deposit after the conclusion of a tenancy it must be returned to the tenant.

If however the LL wishes to take the tenant to court for damages then that is a seperate issue and case.

OK, I see your point: it is indeed what s.214 of the HA2004 says.

However, as a non-protection claim is not a straightforward claim, the tenant would have to incur £1k+ in legal fees upfront. And according to recent decisions the 3x penalty may not be awarded if the tenancy has ended.
So in practice, as a tenant I would not bother and would just get after the landlord to the deposit money itself if the landlord were to refuse paying it back or if he were to claim spurious deductions.

chappers

jjlandlord wrote: »

OK, I see your point: it is indeed what s.214 of the HA2004 says.

However, as a non-protection claim is not a straightforward claim, the tenant would have to incur £1k+ in legal fees upfront. And according to recent decisions the 3x penalty may not be awarded if the tenancy has ended.
So in practice, as a tenant I would not bother and would just get after the landlord to the deposit money itself if the landlord were to refuse paying it back or if he were to claim spurious deductions.

Nice one JJ thats exactly what I was looking for there was a full length discussion on this on the consumer action website but I couldn't find it and couldn't remember that procedings for non protection were dealt with on a different court track

You are correct that it was pretty much made clear by recent cases that 3x penalty could only be claimed from within a tenancy and the return of the deposit once the tenancy had concluded.

I think we were all at cross purposes on the same subject here, either way the LL has no defence he has no inventory and hasn't protected the deposits so either claim should succede

foverton

Thanks all for your input. I have written to the LL offering to meet him in the middle - I have agreed to pay for redecoration of one room despite not being liable to the full cost, and I have offered 25% of the carpet costs as a gesture of goodwill. I have offered to pay the cost of a professional clean, as well as asking them to take a view on the fact that we shared an 8 year agreement. The offer is significantly less than the £3k initially demanded, but I have mentioned the fact that the new tenancy agreement required the deposit to be protected, and hope the LL backs down on his initial bluster, whic felt a lot like posturing to see how much he could get away with. I will keep the forum posted re: his reply