Tenants leave with no notice - several items missing from house

theartfullodger

I would suggest any scrote cheating swine should be pursued, if necessary through the courts, for as long as it takes, regardless of them being a tenant, landlord, agent, G4S or on benefits being in receipt of civil list payments...

So, trace them by all means easy or harder (eg findermonkey..) and go after them.. If cheats & crooks don't end up getting lessons the hard way &/or CCJs and/or criminal conviction for theft, written up in't local papers, how will they or any other poor innocent tenant/landlord find out they may be about to sign a contract with a crook....

If the ex-tenant wishes to take action against the landlord, so be it...

Do we not all owe a duty to our fellow citizens to flag up the wrong 'uns??

Gets off hobby-horse...

Cheers!

tbs624

jgh wrote: »

Tot up the replacement/repair costs that are not wear 'n' tear, and send a statement to your Deposit Protection service. You get the repair costs, the former tenants get the remainder.
If it's more that the deposit, a polite request to the former tenants, followed up by the Small Claims Court.

As others have pointed out , LL needs inventory or other jointly agreed proof from start of tenancy to be able to claim for dilapidations etc.

To be able to use the deposit monies to cover any unpaid rent, that possibility will have to have been part of the tenancy agreement from the start.

OP is in the unenviable postion of being carped on by both own LA and the Ts.

OP - what is happening re LA? I have today posted (in the Evict a Rogue LL thread on here -post 298) on a court case against a dodgy LA . Was your LA signed up to ARLA, NALs etc - note that NALs insuarnces covered the losses in the case I mentioned. Do you know if other LLs or Ts got ripped off by your LA?

You mention the Ts benefit payments - have you checked with the LHA/HB office that the Ts are recorded as no longer living at your property?

If it turns out that the Ts have left unpaid utility bills, note that the companies must pursue the Ts rather than you, provided that the tenancy agreement states that the Ts were responsible for paying the bills and that you let the utility companies know the start dates of the tenancy & Ts names.

OP - only you can decide whether it is worth the hassle of trying to pursue these Ts for appropriate payment for the losses you have incurred. If they are on a low income/benefits probably the only result you will get is either an award of stupid ££ per week and/or the knowledge that they may get a CCJ against their names if they fail to cough up on time. You may of course feel a sense of least some "justice" if the latter result is "achieved"

You need to ensure that, as Werdnal says, you have the keys back and the tenancy is brought to a proper close.

Make the appropriate claim via the tenancy deposit scheme to start winding it all down and take it from there

You mention mmore than one rental property - if you have to use an LA then remember that anyone - absolutely anyone- can set up in business as an LA. They have no obligatory formal regulation and they do not have to have a specific level of training, experience or qualification.

Ulfar

tbs624 wrote: »

Before jumping in - almost gleefully - to encourage the OP to get vomitous, you may want to read back through the thread. The OP *has* apparently ensured that a deposit has been scheme registered, despite the LA running of with the actual money.

Edit: OP's futher post has confirmed this

I have read back and from the posts the OP has now registered the deposit.

A late protection of a deposit it still a breach of the law and triggers the penalties, it is one o fthe reasons why the localism changes were brought in. Thats why I states the deposit had to be protected by 06th May 2012, assuming the tenancy was in place prior too 06th April 2012. Otherwise the deposit has to be protected within 30 days.

tbs624

Ulfar wrote: »

I have read back and from the posts the OP has now registered the deposit.

A late protection of a deposit it still a breach of the law and triggers the penalties, it is one o fthe reasons why the localism changes were brought in. Thats why I states the deposit had to be protected by 06th May 2012, assuming the tenancy was in place prior too 06th April 2012. Otherwise the deposit has to be protected within 30 days.

Thanks for your response Ulfar - am fully aware of the Localism Act You are, however, still making assumptions about *when* the late protection was actually made. The OP's other posts on here concerning the two rental properties and the problems with the LA/tenancy deposits cover March - May.

Why not ask the OP a clarfiying question before leaping in with

You had a duty to protect that money......
Because you have failed ......

and so on.

As other regulars on here will know, I generally have no time for LLs who flout the law on tenancy deposits but the OP seems to have taken over dealing the properties following the death of her father and discovers that a dodgy LA was at play.

Forwards to February 2012 - my dad died, so my mum is left with the houses but no idea whats going on - i have been managing the houses for her as mum is suffering from depression at losing dad.

I think it highly unlikely that a couple of Ts who have failed to give the LL appropriate notice, done a runner owing rent, left the property in a state and taken the LLs furniture with them would try pursuing the LL to court.

I may of course be wrong........

(OP may confirm the date she sorted out the late deposit protection and show that there would be no grounds for the Ts to pursue non reg anyway.)

irishcol

Feel_Sick wrote: »

I may have inherited the house, but the rent from it pays my own rent on my house in Somerset, so not quite 'Irrelevant'.

Fair enough, although most people use their salary to pay their rent.

Anyway, if having the house vacant makes it easier for you to sell it sooner, you'll more than recoup the lost rent.