Landlord not returning deposit

mightymorton

I have no objection whatsover in paying for the light it is the fare waer and tear that I have difficulty absorbing simp;ly because it is not justifiable. Long before I threatened a small claim I offered the LL a reduction of £100 as an act of goodwill which as he doesnt communicate with me any longer I assume has been declined.

Lets not loose sight of the fact that this English based LL ( to show which legal system us in force) failed to lodge my money with a tenanct assurance scheme , failed to inform me of the aforementioned scheme and then retains all my deposit illegally. He then some 5 weeks after the tenancy ends wants me to pay a bill ( not supported by invoices) of £470 ish which is constituted as betterment and also an offence. I have sent him the relevant court forms and he has now 14 days to return my money before the small claim is issued formally

N79

mightymorton wrote: »

Hi All, Just recently completed an 6 month assured tenancy let which was for our daughter whilst attending university in a brand new flat. It transpires that the landlord never lodged my money with the 3 tenant assurance schemes which is preventing me getting my deposit back.

Who was the actual tenant named on the tenancy - you, your daughter or both? Your post is not clear.

It matters re deposit protection, but not about what does and does not constitute a valid deduction.

vuvuzela

mightymorton wrote: »

I refute the painting as that is minor markings from furniture and moving in and out so constitutes fare wear and tear.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that. Moving furniture in and out should not cause damage if done properly. If furniture is placed in such a location that it damages the wall or paintwork then this is the fault of the tenant. Scrapes on walls from this process should be rectified by the tenant IMO. I think your version of what is fair wear and tear needs revising.

However I definitely broadly agree with you - the LL should have had the deposit protected and appears to be charging over the odds for rectifying the damage caused by your daughter.

mightymorton

We have to clearly define damage , I would be the first to make good any damage caused however minor blemishes to paint work during normal occupancy is clearly wear and tear. I was far from unreasonable and even had to wait a week to get the final meter reading as the cupboard ws locked however I met the bill in full instead of disagreeing about a weeks gas/electric consumption.The deposit/disputes/damages guide via the tenancy deposit scheme( which has not been afforded to us as he failed to protect it in any of the 3 schemes) states
Many landlords believe that the property should be returned to them in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy. Deductions are often claimed from the deposit for minor damage that should be expected in any normal use of the property. Similarly, some landlords seize the opportunity to „replace‟ items in the property which are coming to the end of their natural life e.g. redecorating an entire room when minor scuff marks have been caused by the tenant.
The House of Lords defined fair wear and tear as "reasonable use of the premises by the tenant and the ordinary operation of natural forces". The word „reasonable‟ can be interpreted differently, depending on the type of property and who occupies it. In addition, it is an established legal principle that a landlord is not entitled to charge his tenants the full cost for having any part of his property, or any fixture or fitting, "…..put back to the condition it was at the start of the tenancy." Landlords should therefore keep in mind that the tenant‟s deposit is not to be used like an insurance policy where you might get "full replacement value" or "new for old".
The landlord also has a duty to act reasonably and not claim more than is necessary to make good any loss. For example:
 Replacement of a damaged item may be justified where it is either severely and extensively damaged beyond economic repair or, its condition makes it unusable;
 Repair or cleaning is a more likely award where replacement cannot be justified;
 In cases where an item has had its value reduced or its lifespan shortened, for example by damage, an award of compensation may be appropriate;
In addition to seeking the most appropriate remedy, the landlord should not end up, either financially or materially, in a better position than he was at start of the tenancy, or than he would have otherwise been at the end of the tenancy after having allowed for fair wear and tear.

He had the option to reach an amicable solution and chose not to. Maybe he doesnt use the gpovernment backed assurance scheme to avoid his tax liability but thats a separate matter

BitterAndTwisted

mightymorton wrote: »

We have to clearly define damage,

We don't have to do anything, you have to understand the distinction between damage and wear & tear yourself..


I would be the first to make good any damage caused however minor blemishes to paint work during normal occupancy is clearly wear and tear.

No, you are wrong. "Blemishes" to paintwork during the tenancy is damage. Which it is fair to be charged for. Why should the landlord accept having the property returned in a less favourable condition than it was at the start?


Many landlords believe that the property should be returned to them in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy.

No, not many of them: ALL sensible landlords would be justified in expecting this. And would be completely reasonable in expecting to be compensation for it.

Deductions are often claimed from the deposit for minor damage that should be expected in any normal use of the property.

"Minor damage" is damage. Wear & tear something else altogether. You appear to be having difficulty in appreciating this distinction. That is at the root of your problems with this situation. Your daughter is going to lose some of her deposit and she'll deserve it. For the damage she has caused.

mightymorton

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

"Minor damage" is damage. Wear & tear something else altogether. You appear to be having difficulty in appreciating this distinction. That is at the root of your problems with this situation. Your daughter is going to lose some of her deposit and she'll deserve it. For the damage she has caused.

This has never been disputed that I will loose some of my deposit although the word damage is refuted (light fitting excepted) , you really should take the time to read my entries and you come across as a landlord with your point of view. The very reason the housing act 2004 was set up with the tenancy deposit scheme was to remove issues such as this and the same guidance quotes below
A common misconception is that the tenancy deposit protection schemes are biased toward either the landlord or the tenant. When a dispute reaches adjudication, an adjudicator‟s starting position mirrors that of the courts. The deposit is first and foremost the tenant‟s money; this remains the case until the landlord can justify their claim to it. The onus is on the landlord to show why they are entitled to claim money from the deposit. He has aked me for £470 ish for a minor carpet stain which can be cleaned , a 12" under counter kitchen light which he wants to replace due to a broken clip and to paint 3 rooms with minor marks to the emulsion due to people brushing past etc all without him producing written quotes inspite of being asked to.This constitutes betterment and I suggest you look it up

Many landlords believe that the property should be returned to them in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy.

No, not many of them: ALL sensible landlords would be justified in expecting this. And would be completely reasonable in expecting to be compensation for it

Your response above illustrates your misunderstanding of fair wear and tear , how can somewhere be lived in and not experience minor marks etc during normal domestic life so cannot possibly be the same after it has been lived in. The House of Lords ( those who passed the housing Act being the one the LL never complied with) quote from the same dispute guidance the following

The House of Lords defined fair wear and tear as "reasonable use of the premises by the tenant and the ordinary operation of natural forces". In addition, it is an established legal principle that a landlord is not entitled to charge his tenants the full cost for having any part of his property, or any fixture or fitting, "…..put back to the condition it was at the start of the tenancy." Landlords should therefore keep in mind that the tenant‟s deposit is not to be used like an insurance policy where you might get "full replacement value" or "new for old".

BitterAndTwisted

"Reasonable". "Operation of natural forces" do not mean marks on painted walls, stains on carpets or broken fittings, so please don't lecture me. I don't require it.

Also, you are mistaken: I am not landlord, nor have I ever been one but nice straw-man try there.

Your daughter caused damage. Damage which is not reasonable in proper and normal use of a property. Live with it

mightymorton

Yawn , take the time to read the dispute resolution guidance and I have accepted that there is a cost that I have to pay. Please note this has never been in dispute just so you can see it I`ve put it in bold. The quote to clean a spot stain in the carpet ( a small glass of coke was spilled I beleive leaving a small hardly noticable stain) from the LL ( not supported by written estimates was £120 + vat) I phoned a local ( to the flat) carpet cleaner who gave a verbal quote of £20 , please take your blinkers off and you dont have to reply. I am sure you can bore the pants of of someone else as you have no grasp of the matter .

Looking at your post count you really should get out more.

kizzie_nikita

Go easy on Mighty, she/he's only asking for advice.. & they're new, i'm pretty sure it says ;please be expecially nice'

SavvyStudentSaver

The nature of what the claims are seem reasonable. The stains because they can be avoided (as opposed to the thinning of the carpet due to walking on it, or fading of carpet due to age). The paint because if the scrapes have been caused by pushing furniture past it, and bumping into it, again, it can be easily avoided. The light fitting, as you have already said, is reasonable. So unfortunately, you can't claim any of them are unreasonable.

However, the amount in question would need to be justified- £470 does seem a little excessive. However, there are other things to take into consideration- is the shade of paint still available? If not, could the landlord be entitled to paint the entire wall so it doesn't look messy. Plus, paying for not just materials, but labour. Though, IMO, the LL should have provided a breakdown of his costs- thought I can't be sure.

Hopefully that's a little easier for all concerned to swallow.