As a landlord, what is a fair deduction to make from deposit?

roses

Hi all,

I have a friend who has rented out her house. Her tenants moved out one and a half weeks ago and she is moving back in on the weekend. She used to live there, changed jobs 100 miles away & now has another job in the area so can move back in. It was intended as her home, not a buy to let investment so many the house was well taken care of before she left.

There are a few items of furniture missing (a dining table & some chairs), large holes in the wall & a garden full of rubbish. When the tenants first moved in, they complained that the place was a bit dirty. She offered them financial compensation to get a cleaner in or clean themselves but they declined.

They have been living there about 2 years. Throughout their tenancy, she has given them at least 3 written warnings for smoking, several rooms were painted without permission (bathroom was painted pink!) & the garden got into an atrocious state.

She has said she wants to deduct £80 from their deposit to cover a missing dining table, holes in the wall which need repair & cleaning of the living room carpet which is in a filthy state.

They are making a huge fuss saying how dirty the house was when they moved in. She thought this issue was resolved when they moved in - she offered money but they said no so as far as she is concerned that chapter was over with.

They seem to think they made huge improvements on the house & they painted the house (without permission) & replaced some furniture (with cheap Ikea stuff which is already falling apart) & my friend is very upset. She is unsure if the £80 is a fair deduction.

My opinion is that £80 is more than reasonable & I have seen many friends who have had far more than that deducted for much smaller things.

What should she do?

abaxas

Just remember that if she doesn't have a signed inventory, she can't deduct anything.

roses

She has a signed inventory. Photos before they moved in & photos after they moved out.

justruth

As a previous tennant with both good and bad landlords, I would suggest that she get the jobs professionally completed, and use the deposit to pay for them. Also the missing furniture, if the replacement is not fit for use, be replaced and the cost deducted from the deposit. She can then send a copy of these receipts with a remittance advice for the rest of the deposit should any be due. As for the cleaning at the start, as she offered to pay for a professional clean, she can pay that on production of a receipt. (Clearly they won't have one). Then it is up to the tennants to take her to court to try to reclaim the rest of the deposit, however if she plays it all by the book, eg gets three quotes for work and uses the cheapest etc then they won't have a leg to stand on. I agree that she should have had a signed inventory but a judge will see that she is not a professional landlord and as such I am sure exercise judgement on that one.

The alternative is to give in, I know in the past I have been prepared to lose out on a little money to avoid the hassle.

justruth

Cross posted, even better, just play it by the book then. If the cleaning was an issue before they shouldn't have signed the inventory.

Andrew_Peacock_2

There really isn't any guidance on this in law, unless there was anything specified in the tenancy agreement and even then, I'm guessing it wouldn't go into detail.

I would advise her to deduct what she thinks is fair and equitable, and stick to her guns. The former tenant's only recourse would be through a small claims court where they would have to prove that the deduction was unfair.

I work for a housing association and we would certainally recharge a former tenant for damage to the property and for removal of the rubbish.

clutton_2

suggesting "disciplinary" for smoking really made me laugh !!!!! you Cannot dictate how people live their lives like that - you may not like smoking, but, "disciplinary" - this is not school my dear !!!!

if the furniture was new, and receipts could be shown, then i would suggest that £80 is way too little !!

RichyRich

clutton wrote:

suggesting "disciplinary" for smoking really made me laugh !!!!! you Cannot dictate how people live their lives like that - you may not like smoking, but, "disciplinary" - this is not school my dear !!!!

if the furniture was new, and receipts could be shown, then i would suggest that £80 is way too little !!

Yes you can. The parties to a lease may covenant how they choose. If there was a covenant in the lease that smoking in the property was not permitted, then the tenants were in breach of covenant and as such the landlord is entitled to use any remedies available.

clutton_2

I am led to believe that non-smoking, and no pets are recommendedas unfair terms of contract in the OFT website.

You cannot "covenant" anything which takes away a legal right under other legislation - i.e. just because it is in an AST does not make it legally binding if it is illegal under any other legislation.

"written warnings" are usually connected with employment legislation and are not any kind of "remedy" in property law as far as i know.

Gorgeous_George

There is no law that says smoking must be allowed in a rented property.

Moreover, I would suggest that a BTL is my decorator's place of work and that smoking would be illegal. Okay, I may be stretching it on that one but having just taken possession of a house after the tenants smoked heavily, I can confirm that the residue left behind is disgusting.

I spent many hours cleaning their filth and repainting 10 rooms and the stairs/hall.

The sooner evryone gives up this filthy habit the better IMO.



GG

MonkeySaving?

RichyRich wrote:

Yes you can. The parties to a lease may covenant how they choose. If there was a covenant in the lease that smoking in the property was not permitted, then the tenants were in breach of covenant and as such the landlord is entitled to use any remedies available.

No you can't, even if the original tenancy agreement specifies that you cannot smoke or have pets, you can. As clutton said, they are unfair terms according to the OFT and your signature accepting "right to enjoyment of the property" overrides any restrictions you might put as small detail.