Landlord not returning deposit

mightymorton

He has sent me an e-mail claiming £120 to clean a spot stain , £185 to re-decorate and £42 to replace a kitchen light fitting that only has the securing clip broken...oh all plus VAT

Scotland's university's are full of non Scottish people primarily because it is free and consequently can accept the very best students

BitterAndTwisted

If the carpet was stained during your daughter's tenancy then that charge is fair. Marks from a headboard on the wall is also damage and should be paid for. Ditto that light-fitting if your daughter caused the damage, it cannot be repaired and it can be proven from the check-in inventory.

I don't understand your comment about Scottish Universities and suspect that it's not relevant in any case.

Yorkie1

As the property is in England, I would advise starting proceedings there. Scotland has a different legal system.

Edit: I note you say that there was no inventory - I assume you mean at the start? In which case, LL cannot prove state of property at the start, and therefore cannot prove it was left in a worse condition at the end.

zappahey

mightymorton wrote: »

I am based in Scotland

Greenock boy, at a guess.

bmar71n

there is guidance on directgov website for this which is quite substantial, however you both have to agree on what damage has occurred which is usually quite simple if there has been a condition report before the tenancy started, however if this hasn't been done it will be difficult to prove any damage caused was not done by you

Yorkie1

bmar71n wrote: »

there is guidance on directgov website for this which is quite substantial, however you both have to agree on what damage has occurred which is usually quite simple if there has been a condition report before the tenancy started, however if this hasn't been done it will be difficult to prove any damage caused was not done by you

Or the OP goes to court, which is the advice earlier in the thread.

bmar71n

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Or the OP goes to court, which is the advice earlier in the thread.

this is true, but it would be best to avoid going to court even because if there was no condition report at the start of the tenancy, it is very unlikely the tenant will win as it is there responsibility to prove no damage has occurred

Zorz_2

bmar71n wrote: »

it is very unlikely the tenant will win as it is there responsibility to prove no damage has occurred

Huh?

The landlord is the one who is asking for damages, so why doesn't the burden of proof lie on them?

bmar71n

Zorz wrote: »

Huh?

The landlord is the one who is asking for damages, so why doesn't the burden of proof lie on them?

because damage has clearly occurred and it would be assumed that the property was undamaged at the start of the tenancy unless the tenant or someone on their behalf (some letting agents or landlords will do this to avoid disputes such as these but it is the tenants responsibility) carries out a condition report on the property at the start of the tenancy.

Yorkie1

bmar71n wrote: »

it is very unlikely the tenant will win as it is there responsibility to prove no damage has occurred

bmar71n wrote: »

because damage has clearly occurred and it would be assumed that the property was undamaged at the start of the tenancy unless the tenant or someone on their behalf (some letting agents or landlords will do this to avoid disputes such as these but it is the tenants responsibility) carries out a condition report on the property at the start of the tenancy.

This is not correct.

The LL is the person seeking to retain the money and therefore the burden of proof lies on him / her - and not on the T.

The T is obliged to return the property in the same condition as when the tenancy started, less fair wear and tear. There is no presumption that the property was undamaged at the start of the tenancy.

The LL has to prove to the requisite standard that the damage was in fact caused by the T. In the absence of a dual-signed inventory at the start of the tenancy, it is very difficult for the LL to establish this and therefore a claim for deduction from deposit would be unlikely to succeed.

Obviously, if the LL can prove by way of receipts etc that certain goods were brand new immediately before the T moved in, that would be different, but the general principle of law you've stated is just plain wrong.