A Question about TDS

mikewild74

When I moved into my rented house in 2009 I paid a £600 deposit (a months rent) as well as my 1st months rent.
I was told it would be placed into a deposit scheme called "My deposits" and details would be sent to me through the post, but no certificate came, but I thought nothing of it.

I have now moved out and I received a cheque for £460 and told that £140 was being deducted because they wanted to replace the Lino flooring in the kitchen. I Discussed the kitchen floor with my Landlord when I handed the keys the him in January and he said he would get back to me with a price.

I'm starting to believe that my deposit was never placed in a scheme at all as I've never signed anything to agree to the deduction, I have no certificate and the "my deposits" website has no record of a deposit held with them.

Can anybody give me some advice as i'm in two minds weather to bank the cheque or to fight for the rest of my Deposit.

Thanks

mikewild74

I have found out that I was not in a deposit scheme.

Yorkie1

Firstly, was there a detailed inventory when you moved in? If not, then the LL is unlikely to be able to prove you did any damage and cannot charge you for it.

If so, did it mention the state of the lino? Did you cause any damage to it beyond fair wear and tear?

The LL is not entitled to what is called 'betterment'. This means he can't use tenants' deposits as a new-for-old policy, if you like. If lino has a lifespan of, say 10 years, and you damage it after 7 years, then he can only charge up to 3 years (30%) of the cost. If you didn't damage it beyond fw&t, then he is entitled to nothing.

Given this information, do you really think it reasonable for him to deduct 25% of your deposit for the lino?

Others will hopefully be along to give an opinion on the deposit protection side of things - I'm not entirely sure of the rules once you've left the property.

G_M

If the deposit was not protected, then you can go to court and claim 3 times the deposit as penalty. The court will give you 'up to' this amount depending on exact circumastances.

The deposit itself is seperate - it should also be returned, though genuine deductions can be made. If you disagree with the proposed deductions (see Yorkie above), you can also claim this in court.

See Housing Act 2004 (amended by Localism Act 2010).

You may prefer to compromise rather than actually go to court. The threat of court (and the penalty) may be enough for the landlord to simply return your deposit in full, and this may satisfy you.

The above assumes you are in England/Wales, and your tenancy started after 2007.

mikewild74

I was hoping to contact the letting agent about the deductions and mention the lack of a deposit scheme with the hope of getting my full deposit back, but i've read so many conflicting reports as to my rights now that i've left the property.

G_M

mikewild74 wrote: »

I was hoping to contact the letting agent about the deductions and mention the lack of a deposit scheme with the hope of getting my full deposit back, but i've read so many conflicting reports as to my rights now that i've left the property.

Until last April, once you had ended the tenancy you could no longer claim the 3 times penalty. This was because the Housing Act 2004 which introduced deposit schemes was poorly written.

The Localism Act 2010 improved th wording of the Housing Act, and this became effective last April.

Court claims can now be made by tenants at any time, even after they have left the tenancy.

tim123456789

mikewild74 wrote: »

I have found out that I was not in a deposit scheme.

If the deposit was not protected then the deduction is unlawful

(though this doesn't mean that the LL can't make a claim for the money through the courts)

G_M

tim123456789 wrote: »

If the deposit was not protected then the deduction is unlawful

(though this doesn't mean that the LL can't make a claim for the money through the courts)

Not sure this is true. Can you point to the relevant part of the Act, or case law?

I believe a valid deduction from a deposit (eg for genuine damage/rent arrears) can always be made.

If the deposit was unprotected it would be for the tenant to use the courts to

1) contest the deduction and claim it back, and/or
2) claim the 3 times penalty

The courts might agree with the deduction and reject 1) above, but simultaneously agree the deposit should have been protected and grant 2).

tim123456789

G_M wrote: »

Not sure this is true. Can you point to the relevant part of the Act, or case law?

I believe a valid deduction from a deposit (eg for genuine damage/rent arrears) can always be made.

It was in the original act that introduced deposits.

It said that deductions could not be made from unprotected deposits (IIRC it was, at the time, the only enforcable sanction)

tim

G_M

tim123456789 wrote: »

It was in the original act that introduced deposits.

It said that deductions could not be made from unprotected deposits (IIRC it was, at the time, the only enforcable sanction)

tim

Thanks - and I agree... with a caveat.

I assume you are referring to Housing Act 2004 section 214 (3) (a)?

The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a)order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or

(b)order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,

So it does not exactly say deductions cannot be made from the deposit, but does say that, if the tenant applies to the court, the court must order the depsoit to be returned (or registered).

However, in practice of course, if the tenant took this action and went to court, the landlord could make a counter-claim for damage which would be heard at the same time.

the court might rule
a) in favour of the tenant - so the deposit must be returned AND
b) in favour of the Landlord's counter-claim (so the tenant must pay the damages

The effect being that only part (or indeed none) of the deposit would be returned.

There is nothing I can see in the Act that prohibits such a counter-claim, so a blanket statement that 'deductions cannot be made' is misleading.

Happy as always to be further corrected though!