It seems our deposit isn't registered?

sorrel

We are about to enter into negotiations with our ex LL over claims she is making on our deposit, and over and above that too (we do know that there has been some damage and delapidation, just don;t agree that we should pay 100% of putting it right (betterment), but that is a different issue). LL's Agent states that the deposit was initially with TDS, which then changed it's name to My Deposits (who's guidelines my Partner and I have been using on deciding what is fair for us to offer to pay to put the dilapidations right). We have checked with My Deposits by phone and they have never had any deposit registered against the postcode of our ex-rental property. Does this have any impact on us in any way?

Thank you.

abankerbutnotafatcat

I think that TDS is still called TDS so that could be why you're having trouble tracing it. Either way, now that they are your ex-LL unfortunately, I'm not sure it matters where it should have been registered.

Betterment is a difficult one as it often costs just as much to repair something as to replace it with new depending of course of what it is and where you are in the country (London labour costs are notoriously high).

tbs624

abankerbutnotafatcat wrote: »

I think that TDS is still called TDS so that could be why you're having trouble tracing it.

The OP has perhaps misunderstood. TDS altered their membership rules and some of their former members then chose to use mydeposits as the other insurance backed scheme

abankerbutnotafatcat wrote: »

Betterment is a difficult one as it often costs just as much to repair something as to replace it with new depending of course of what it is and where you are in the country (London labour costs are notoriously high).

Betterment is pretty straightforward as a principle - LL may not use Ts deposit as a "new for old insurance policy" to put himself in a better position than he would otherwise have been.

abankerbutnotafatcat

tbs624 wrote: »

Betterment is pretty straightforward as a principle - LL may not use Ts deposit as a "new for old insurance policy" to put himself in a better position than he would otherwise have been.

As a principle maybe, but in practice where labour costs come in to play the cost of repair may be the same or even more than replacing. Therefore to the T it may appear as betterment as the LL now has new but in fact LL has gone down the cheapest route to get an undamaged xyz.

I've been in the position of phoning 5 tradespeople in central London and not one of them would repair a damaged item all stating it was too small or too time-consuming/fiddly a job. Two of them said they'd replace and it would cost the same as repairing.

tbs624

sorrel wrote: »

We are about to enter into negotiations with our ex LL over claims she is making on our deposit, and over and above that too (we do know that there has been some damage and delapidation, just don;t agree that we should pay 100% of putting it right (betterment), but that is a different issue). LL's Agent states that the deposit was initially with TDS, which then changed it's name to My Deposits (who's guidelines my Partner and I have been using on deciding what is fair for us to offer to pay to put the dilapidations right). We have checked with My Deposits by phone and they have never had any deposit registered against the postcode of our ex-rental property. Does this have any impact on us in any way?

Thank you.

Write to your LL ( keep a copy). Give tenancy dates, property address, deposit amount, date paid and to whom it was paid.

State that you are aware that your tenancy deposit was not scheme registered for the duration of your tenancy as required by law ( Housing Act 2004) and that you have confirmed with TDS, mydeposits and DPs that there is no current registration/has been no ongoing reg since (date).

Ask them to write to you, returning your tenancy deposit to you, within 7 working days and see what they say.

Don't deal with this via email, text or phone - keep it in writing with copies.

tbs624

abankerbutnotafatcat wrote: »

As a principle maybe, but in practice where labour costs come in to play the cost of repair may be the same or even more than replacing. Therefore to the T it may appear as betterment as the LL now has new but in fact LL has gone down the cheapest route to get an undamaged xyz.

I think you have misunderstood both what the OP said and the general application of the principle.

They referred to being expected as Ts to pay 100% of the cost - that would clearly be betterment.

Say carpet needed replacement - same brand still available, but now obviously costing more tp purchase than when original bought. That does not affect the fact that LL cannot simply say "I want 100% of the cost from your deposit".

Let's say that it would be 250 quid for that replacement. Let's be very generous and say that carpet would have a life expectancy of 10 years.In our example carpet was 2 years old when this exiting T moved in, tenancy was for 2 years but carpet ruined by T - LL could only expect T to contribute 6 years worth of cost (ie remaining life of carpet that T has deprived LL of)

abankerbutnotafatcat

tbs624 wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood both what the OP said and the general application of the principle.

They referred to being expected as Ts to pay 100% of the cost - that would clearly be betterment.

Say carpet needed replacement - same brand still available, but now obviously costing more tp purchase than when original bought. That does not affect the fact that LL cannot simply say "I want 100% of the cost from your deposit".

Let's say that it would be 250 quid for that replacement. Let's be very generous and say that carpet would have a life expectancy of 10 years.In our example carpet was 2 years old when this exiting T moved in, tenancy was for 2 years but carpet ruined by T - LL could only expect T to contribute 6 years worth of cost (ie remaining life of carpet that T has deprived LL of)

I believe I understand both the concept and the OP's query but I do not know the nature of the actual item in the betterment situation.

In the case of carpets, I quite agree with you. However, for other items it might not be so clear: the T breaks an item (i.e. it cannot be let to future Ts in its current state and it was unbroken at start of tenancy) so T is responsible for 100% of the costs to repair. However, the cost to repair is the same/more than to replace due to the labour costs.

tbs624

abankerbutnotafatcat wrote: »

..the T breaks an item (i.e. it cannot be let to future Ts in its current state and it was unbroken at start of tenancy) so T is responsible for 100% of the costs to repair. However, the cost to repair is the same/more than to replace due to the labour costs.

No, T would *not* be liable for *100%* of the costs as explained above. It's not just carpets that have to be dealt with this way.