Spill the beans... on getting deposits back from landlords

helentryingtoberich

All the tenants advising others not to pay the last month's rent are the reason why the deposit amount is beginning to increase. Many agents and landlords in our area (Norfolk) are now asking for 2 months' or one and a half month's rent as deposit. We are the only agent just asking for 1 month's rent, but are now reconsidering, because our experience is that those tenants who don't pay the last month's rent also tend to be the ones who leave a load of rubbish and don't clean when they go. Removing rubbish at commercial rates, which is what the council force us to do, is extremely expensive. The landlord is left badly out of pocket in these cases.
From the tenant's point of view, having to find a bigger deposit makes renting even more expensive.
The other danger is that the tenant will end up with a County Court Judgment against them. Try renting if you've got one of those! We always start court proceedings if tenants don't pay their last months rent.
Regarding the protecting of the deposit, using an agent will ensure that the deposit is protected in one of the 3 schemes, as the agent will be out of business if they don't obey the law. Keep in mind that either the landlord or the tenant can insist on using the dispute service provided by all 3 schemes, if they can't agree the deposit deductions.

Innys

helentryingtoberich wrote: »

The other danger is that the tenant will end up with a County Court Judgment against them. Try renting if you've got one of those!

I made this very point in post #37 and yet subsequent posters hasve repeatedly said witholding the deposit is the only answer.

Maybe tenants who do this don't rent from landlords who request references. So having a CCJ isn't a problem in finding somewhere else to rent.

Of course, getting credit in the future may be a different story.

Lum

A timely thread.

Tomorrow I'm meeting my old letting agent for the final inspection. I'm going down there with a laptop full of photographs that we took in on moving in day, showing a filthy grease stained oven, dead insects all over the place, dust, cobwebs etc. etc.

If they get funny about the photographs, I'll offer them the .RAWs

debbiesmum

I am a Landlord, BUT, I am a good landlord. Having rented two properties for the last 7+ years, I have only deducted from a deposit 3 times, ie

• Once was a nominal amount to cover cost of new microwave
• Of a £500 deposit, £34.71 was returned because of damage, BUT I provided copies of receipts verifying that I had actually bought replacement items and not just pocketed the money. I did replace carpets, etc.
• Having taken £500 deposit - it cost my husband and I £800+ to repair damage.

All other tenants have left property in good enough condition (normal wear and tear) that we refunded deposits in full.

I take pictures of the property and main furniture etc at the point a tenant moves in - I give tenants copies of the pics and explain that is the condition on the day they take over, that is the condition I expect property to be in at end of lease. If an item is marked in any way when they move in - I indicate this clearly on the copy of the inventory which I give them. This is to protect them as well as me from arguments as to what damage has happened during a tenancy.

I have always kept deposits in a separate bank account, ring-fenced so that monies are available to be returned as and when appropriate in a very timely manner. I strongly object to the new laws in Scotland demanding that I hand over deposits to a Government agency. This rule has been brought in because of rogue lanlords and yet as a good landlord, I have control of monies taken away from me.

helentryingtoberich

Debbiesmum says she has only deducted deposit money to replace items and provided receipts to prove she replaced them.
There is a lot of confusion over the concept of 'betterment'. When a tenant damages an item beyond repair or loses it, the landlord is only entitled to the current value on that item. So if a 5 year old carpet is ruined, the landlord can claim half the cost of replacing it, because a carpet is assumed to have a 10 year life.
I am sure many landlords think they are being reasonable to claim full replacement costs, which is why the deposit protection schemes are a good idea

Lum

Well that was a horrible experience.

The letting agent uses an allegedly independent inventory company. I say allegedly because they're getting paid by the letting agent and presumably would like to have repeat business.

The person claimed to be impartial and to have also done the check in inventory, however she judged many things that were previously reported as "lightly scuffed/stained" as now "heavily scuffed/stained" until being presented with a laptop full of photographs showing them in identical condition at which point she retracted those individual ones I'd photographed.

She even went onto my laptop when I left it unattended for a moment and checked the datestamps on the photographs. Also she accused me of faking the invoice from the professional cleaner I handed to her!

Apparently they have a preferred cleaning company that they insisted I use. This would be the company mentioned in the letter that they dated 3rd July, but didn't arrive until 13th July, informing me that the checkout inspection was 10AM on the 14th, thus giving me 16 hours notice that my plan to spend the weekend finishing off the place, e.g. anything the cleaner missed, was now impossible.

I still lost about £200 in deductions as I hadn't managed to photograph every single thing wrong with the house and had foolishly agreed only verbally that the landlord would maintain the hedge.

Oh, and she's taken all the keys off me, even though my tenancy doesn't end until the end of today, so there's no way I can fix the simple stuff myself.

If I get anyone other than their mate preferred cleaning company to come in. I'll be charged a £42 re-inspection fee.

Guess we'll have to see what the final report says and get ready for a fight with the deposit protection people.

rgbargee

When the landlord of my son's student accommodation refused to return the deposit, after many months of polite requests, my husband wrote to say that as it seemed that the landlord regarded the sum as additional rent, he must have declared it on his tax returns. My husband said that he would contact the tax office over the matter. The deposit came by return of post!

Innys

rgbargee wrote: »

When the landlord of my son's student accommodation refused to return the deposit, after many months of polite requests, my husband wrote to say that as it seemed that the landlord regarded the sum as additional rent, he must have declared it on his tax returns. My husband said that he would contact the tax office over the matter. The deposit came by return of post!

I hope you told the tax man anyway - I would have.

I'm a landlord who delcares all my rental income to HMRC and eliminating the competition, I mean rogue landlords, is no bad thing in my book.

Being serious for a moment, though, if the landlord had any (tax) sense, he would have called your bluff. Deductions from the deposit are not "additional rent" in the eyes of the tax man. They are used to reimburse the costs of repairs the landlord has had to make - a simple "in and out", if you will, from the property accounts with no impact on revenue.

IanMitchel

I must add that I am going to be a landloard and I have had to scrimp and save for it - I have no private pension - this hopefully will be my pension.

I want to disspel the myth that all landloards are wealthy.

Its not true - most are streching themselves to take a huge risk that may pay back in 20 years time. The profits are that small.

If a landloard gets a bad tennant it wipes out any gains they may have made for the last few years - being a landloard really is a big risk.

Lum

I think that depends.

I used to know a guy who owned about 20 houses, mostly slums, and basically did no work. Farmed the management out to letting agencies and lived off the profits.