landlord blaming me for buyers pulling out

missile

I think OP has been more than generous. It seems to me LL and buyer have both taken liberties.

If no inventory was taken, LL has no way of proving the condition prior to your let. Provided you leave it in reasonable condition, the agent should return deposit in full.

Werdnal

An inventory is a requirement even if it is unfurnished. How else would the LL prove that you made the holes in the wall, the burn marks on the carpet, melted the kitchen worktop with a hot frying pan and broke 2 panes of glass in the lounge window - that damage could have been present when you moved in! The condition of each and every room - floor covering, decor, curtains etc, should be thoroughly detailed on a check-in inventory. I let a 1 bed unfurnished studio flat and my inventory runs to a whole page of A4 just for a lounge/kitchen/diner, bedroom and bathroom!

In order to claim deposit deductions, LL would need written proof of the before and after condition, so it is likely you would get your whole deposit back even if there was minor dirt and damage through your general use of the property.

Sounds like the LL and (yet again more worryingly) the letting agent, know diddly-squat about letting!

G_M

paraman wrote: »

My deposit is in the government scheme as lease is through a letting agent.

When I read things like this, alarm bells ring. You make a dangerous assumption:

that a letting agent is more likely than a landlord to place the deposit in an approved scheme - wrong. There are good/bad landlords, and good/bad agents!

Do not take it on trust that your deposit is protected. If you have actually been sent (as you should have been) confirmation of which scheme, AND the deposit reference number, together with your personal log-on details, then yes, you should be OK.

If not, or if you have ANY doubts, then contact each of the 3 schemes yourself and ask if your deposit is registered with them. This is the only way to be sure.

Deposits

MagicCats

DVardysShadow wrote: »

While true, that really is a misleading statement which really could grow legs on forums like these. And given that it is quoted on the authority of 'a solicitor', some clarification is required.

Prior to offer, there is no right of access, access is given at the discretion of the occupier. Nothing changes at offer, access is still at the occupier's discretion. But of course, if access is denied, the buyer might quite reasonably decide not to exchange.

So is it true, or is it misleading? Granted it can be true and open to interpretation but it cannot be both true, and false.

I'm not a solicitor, nor a seasoned house buyer. However my solicitor expressly stated that after offer clients are advised not to give access to the prospective buyers until after the exchange of contracts. In fact I have read on these very forums the exact same advice.

Nobody has right of access anyway, as it's the property of the current owner so one cannot just demand access. I've got no axe to grind, nor wish to mascarade as a 'solicitor' and to that end if anyone doubts the sincerity, or reason for my post please PM me and I'll happily supply the law firms details

EDIT: please see post 12 on the thread linked below.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2704749

DVardysShadow

MagicCats wrote: »

So is it true, or is it misleading? Granted it can be true and open to interpretation but it cannot be both true, and false.

It is both true and misleading. Of course as buyer, once you have put an offer in, you are not entitled to a subsequent viewing. But if you want one, you have a strong sanction to apply if you can't get it.

MagicCats wrote: »

.... I'm not a solicitor, nor a seasoned house buyer. However my solicitor expressly stated that after offer clients are advised not to give access to the prospective buyers until after the exchange of contracts. In fact I have read on these very forums the exact same advice.

On these forums, I don't recall seeing that advice We have seen a few threads where sellers want to prevent the buyer taking a viewing after offer, we have seen a few threads where buyers are being prevented from having a viewing after offer.

For many buyers, being prevented from viewing again would be off putting - and I think that the advice to sellers would be that you risk losing your buyer, and to buyers would be to walk away.

Frankly, I don't think there is any legal justification for the advice in terms of adverse consequences [apart possibly from making a verbal representation which turns out to be false - but even this is remote]. And it certainly strikes at the heart of the ideal approach once an offer is agreed that both parties work diligently to bring the deal to a successful conclusion.

MagicCats wrote: »

.... Nobody has right of access anyway, as it's the property of the current owner so one cannot just demand access. I've got no axe to grind, nor wish to mascarade as a 'solicitor' and to that end if anyone doubts the sincerity, or reason for my post please PM me and I'll happily supply the law firms details

I'm not doubting that your solicitor said it - and I am not suggesting that you are masquerading as a solicitor. The danger is that people take your post out of context and weight it too highly because the source is a solicitor.

DVardysShadow

MagicCats wrote: »

EDIT: please see post 12 on the thread linked below.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2704749

Scotland. A different process. The Scottish offer occurs much later in negotiations. In the English system, the offer is subject to an indefinite range of caveats which are resolved up to exchange. Access can often be essential to resolve those caveats.

And if you read the whole thread in context, most posters [myself included] were completely aghast that the vendors or the agents refused access. In fact that thread is a good example of why as buyer, you should expect access after offer

MsHoarder

But in this case the occupier was not the vendor, so what could be considered reasonable access prior to exchange is different. Tbh, I wouldn't want to buy a property whilst there was a resident tenant, and as you are about to leave the landlord could have made it clear that access will be much easier in 6 days time.

Werdnal

MsHoarder wrote: »

Tbh, I wouldn't want to buy a property whilst there was a resident tenant, and as you are about to leave the landlord could have made it clear that access will be much easier in 6 days time.

Indeed, you cannot buy a property with a resident tenant UNLESS you have a BTL mortgage. Residential mortgage would not allow you funds until they had proof that property was vacant - maybe buyers actually pulled out because they were advised that evicting a tenant can be a long winded procedure, and they would not be able to buy until they knew tenant had gone.

LL is not doing themselves any favours at all trying the rent and sell at same time. The money they have lost in this potential sale, must far outweigh the rent that have gained by letting it in the meantime.

BitterAndTwisted

Werdnal wrote: »

An inventory is a requirement even if it is unfurnished. How else would the LL prove that you made the holes in the wall, the burn marks on the carpet, melted the kitchen worktop with a hot frying pan and broke 2 panes of glass in the lounge window - that damage could have been present when you moved in!

Hey now, don't be giving the OP any ideas!

paraman

Thanks for your comments

I have tried to balance the wishes of the landlord who wanted to sell the house and my own needs of wanting to enjoy what little spare time I have due to my job and im paying almost £700 a month in rent and I would say the last 2 months I have had nothing but hassle from the landlord, his estate agents and the couple who were buying the house.

The house will be left in good condition which is how it was when I moved in, im just concerned the LL will be looking for any excuse to find things wrong with the property