Landlord not returning deposit

bouicca21

work your way over the advice on the various deposit scheme websites - as far as I can see (and I've just been through a dispute resolution process) the landlord will need proof of the condition of the flat at the point of letting. The onus is on him to prove damage was not pre-existing and was caused by your child.

If there were no condition report it would have been wise for you to have made one yourself and backed it up with digital photos which are datable. Do you have photos of the damage on leaving? Otherwise what's to stop him/her from claiming it was more extensive? If you go to small claims I think you will need to give him adequate notice of your intention; the court will not be impressed by a pre-emptive move, it will want to know that you have given an opportunity to settle amicably.

martindow

Although there is no condition report at the start of the tenancy the OP said it was a brand new flat. The LL could well say that damage must have been caused by the T. This is not as clear cut as the usual situation with no check-in inventory is it?

teffers

No deposit in one of the three schemes = no deductions from the deposit allowed.

Nice and simple.

Small claims procedure.

rentergirl

This isn't damage, but reasonable wear and tear, and should not be penalised. There is no deposit protection yet in Scotland (it's due to be enacted) but don't let this deluded bully walk all over you.

Yorkie1

martindow wrote: »

Although there is no condition report at the start of the tenancy the OP said it was a brand new flat. The LL could well say that damage must have been caused by the T. This is not as clear cut as the usual situation with no check-in inventory is it?

Thank you for mentioning this. I had forgotten it from the OP.

In that case, assuming the LL can prove that the flat was brand new at the start of the tenancy (should not be too difficult), any absence of an inventory should be of less import than in other situations.

On the question of sending documents recorded delivery, I agree with G_M. This is a double-edged strategy. Yes, if successful, then there is formal proof of delivery (although evidentially you'd need to rely on hearsay rules). But if the person is not in, or refuses to sign, or the proof of delivery is after a deadline (e.g. notice has to be served by the end of a rental period) then you have proof of non-delivery, which is a far more dangerous place to be. You will be bound into another month's contract, for example, with all the costs that brings.

Given that sending something in the course of ordinary post will lead to service being deemed, in the absence of proof from the T, it is far safer to not use recorded delivery.

BitterAndTwisted

Rentergirl has a fetish about sending correspondence by Recorded Delivery and will not desist in giving this erroneous advice despite the reasons why she is wrong having been explained to her a number of times now. Disagreeing with her for perfectly valid reasons is not harassment. It just makes her in the wrong and completely intransigent.

Getting a signature does indeed prove that someone has received an item of mail but a court would accept that two copies sent by first-class post with proof-of-postage retained would in all likelihood have been correctly delivered as well. There are reasons why RD is not completely satisfactory. Like the recipient declining to sign for it and not collecting it from the sorting office, for instance. You can't force someone to accept an item of mail if they are determined to obstruct delivery. In which case a tenant would need a work-around. First-class post is such a thing.

clutton_2

you need to read up on the Localism Bill which came into force in the last couple of weeks. This radically improves tenants' positions if their landlord did not protect the deposit. It is a bill which seeks to redress the appalling judicial decisions under the 2004 Deposit Protection Regs, and which meant that LLs could protect at any time, even after the tenant had left. This loophole has now been categorically closed.

mightymorton

I have no issue with the light fitting although I can find a fitting very similar for around £8 , a verbal quote from a Carlisle carpet cleaning company was £20 for a spot stain and I refute the painting as that is minor markings from furniture and moving in and out so constitutes fare wear and tear. He wanted to decorate the communal area and pass the bill to myself.

The flat was clean and tidy when we left it and wouldn`t do otherwise excessive charges are referred to as betterment quote "The law does not allow for betterment which means a landlord cannot expect to have old replaced with new at the tenant's expense, or indeed clean for that soiled at the start of the tenancy.unquote

clutton_2

just for information... I, as a LL, was recently charged £46,28 to have a bathroom light fitting replaced.

Its not only the cost in the shop that matters, its the materials, plus labour, plus 20% VAT total cost that a LL has to pay.

Yorkie1

rentergirl wrote: »

There is no deposit protection yet in Scotland (it's due to be enacted)

You missed the point that the property is England. Therefore English law will apply and not Scottish law.