Landlord not returning deposit

vuvuzela

kizzie_nikita wrote: »

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

You post this after morton has just been insulting to someone ? Seriously ? They have had plenty of sensible advice and are refusing to accept it.

BitterAndTwisted

If I had to instruct a contractor to spot-clean a stain on the carpet I would expect to be charged a minimum call-out which would be more than a mere £20. Ditto the repainting of the damaged walls: that would most likely be a day's work to a professional. They rarely charge half-days as it's just not worth it.

I may have been a bit harsh with the OP in the way I expressed myself but shouldn't really expect to be told to get out more when I just had a different opinion to them. Their attitude on here and their intransigence about the distinction between damage and wear & tear could speak volumes about the communication they appear to be having with this landlord.

I don't think they deserve any further help or advice as they seem convinced that they know everything. I suspect they are about to be very disappointed with the outcome.

bmar71n

Yorkie1 wrote: »

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.

In practice there is a presumption that the property is undamaged, unless mentioned in any condition report which has been agreed by both parties has been completed.