Has anyone approached the court to have a TDS tenancy deposit decision overturned?

princeofpounds

It's actually the contrary at common law.

Can you demonstrate that? Because I'm not aware of specific examples of precedence, and courts will always look for implicit terms in contracts, as expressed by actions, if explicit ones do not exist.

The situation you describe seems odd to me, because it would for example allow a landlord to install a lemon of a washing machine, and then get the tenants to fix it for free when it inevitably breaks down.

Manual_Reversion

Ok thanks for the advice. I think I'll have to take this one on the chin and concentrate on the letting agent, in the other thread that you've been posting on.

jjlandlord

princeofpounds wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that?

This was stated by legal expert(s) on LLZ.
In addition, this "implicit term" issue popped up here (perhaps from you) and I browsed the Swarb forum about it, where I found the following posts by dls himself (which I hope he'll allow me to paste here):

Under general landlord and tenant law, responsibilities are either explicit or do not exist. The landlord has responsibilities under statute to repair certain installations of the sort referred to, but that is not a simple responsibility to repair damage after a burst....

See http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9116

And

...
The rule at common law is that in the absence of some express obligation, there is no obligation to repair
...

See http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1573

Someone please correct me if they think this does not apply.

To me this means that unless specifically agreed, or part of s.11 of LTA 1985 landlord has not legal obligation to repair anything.

princeofpounds

Someone please correct me if they think this does not apply.

To me this means that unless specifically agreed, or part of s.11 of LTA 1985 landlord has not legal obligation to repair anything.

I'm not going to harp on about getting case evidence, as although you haven't provided any I am presuming this DLS guy is a lawyer? You might be right in terms of what you assert in this latter post, though I'd prefer to see more evidence to be particularly convinced.

But what you have posted isn't what answering what really got to me about your original stance. It wasn't the part about the landlord not being responsible for broken white goods that bothers me, it was the implication that therefore the tenant IS responsible. That makes no sense, as per the 'lemon' example above, and is certainly above and beyond the 'treating the property in a tenant-like manner' required in law of tenants. What you post subsequenly doesn't establish that.

jjlandlord

princeofpounds wrote: »

I'm not going to harp on about getting case evidence

Unfortunately not, and I'd be happy to get such a reference to tilt the balance either way.

princeofpounds wrote: »

I am presuming this DLS guy is a lawyer

Site admin, and as per his twitter profile: "Law publisher, retired solicitor, swimmer, runner, grandfather"
So not necessarily full proof, but at least way better than me.

princeofpounds wrote: »

it was the implication that therefore the tenant IS responsible.

I see your point. As per this very case: T is provided with something in working order and is expected to return it in working order.
Of course there's the argument about wear and tear.

princeofpounds wrote: »

That makes no sense, as per the 'lemon' example above

Nothing prevents T from requesting that a clause re. repairs be included in agreement, imo.

Manual_Reversion

princeofpounds wrote: »

The bath works, the switch was broken, the tenants were in occupation and must have been the direct users of the switch when it broke. The balance of probability is that the switch broke because it was used incorrectly.

That is a succinct summary. Could you not extend that logic to anything though...

(1) The oven broke, tenant may have slammed the door hard, tenant cannot provide evidence that they didn't or that the oven was 'on its way out', therefore tenant pays to mend oven.

(2) Boiler broke, tenant may have left the immersion on for a week causing failure, etcetera, therefore tenant pays for boiler repair.

You could use that framework to get the tenant to pay for anything that breaks down.

That strikes me as absurd.

Damn, I thought I'd put this one to bed!

princeofpounds

That is a succinct summary. Could you not extend that logic to anything though...

It's not the judgement I would make, I'll agree with you there. And if it were anything but a switch I'd be tempted to push it but it might not be worth it, that's all.

norbet

Yeah - a tricky one this IMO.
My tenants cracked a bath by falling over (drunk by his own admission) into it. I had to replace the whole bath - and did so myself at my own expense naively at the time I didn't know if the replacement was mine or the tenants responsibility.
In hindsight, they broke the bath therefore they should have had to pay for the replacement (repairs were not an option - I looked into it at the time hoping to save on costs). At the end of the tenancy we both agreed to deduct £100 from the deposit for the bath incident (it cost much more to replace mind) and we moved on.
But - had my tenants not confessed that they fell into the bath and caused the damage, had they simply said the crack had just appeared, where would things have stood then?

Manual_Reversion

princeofpounds wrote: »

It's not the judgement I would make, I'll agree with you there. And if it were anything but a switch I'd be tempted to push it but it might not be worth it, that's all.

You're right, it's probably not worth the time and effort, expense, and risk of losing good money after bad...

If I did take this matter to court, and lose, assuming I represented myself does anyone have any idea what the financial loss to me would be? It strikes me as being a straightforward case that a layperson such as me could argue before a judge, or would a solicitor be the sensible course here?

Sorry for all the questions and thanks for taking he time to reply. I knew that tenancy would be trouble right from the start.

Manual_Reversion

norbet wrote: »

But - had my tenants not confessed that they fell into the bath and caused the damage, had they simply said the crack had just appeared, where would things have stood then?

I guess the balance of probability would say that cracks do not just appear in baths without good cause, it just doesn't happen. Something must have hit the bath to break it and the tenant is responsible for what happens inside the place, therefore tenant is responsible for the repair bill.

That's what I'd argue, but since this morning my view of what is sensible and what is not has taken a bit of a beating.