MyDeposits - it's all backwards?

[Deleted User]

Good afternoon,

I'm putting in a claim for the return of a deposit via MyDeposits.

All well and good but my problem is this - I've just spent several hours putting together evidence to show why the deposit should be returned to us, comparing check-in v check-out etc. I've located, annotated and uploaded ten documents to prove my case.

I called MyDeposits to ask why I have to do this given that it's my money and it's for the Landlord to prove why they are entitled to the deposit - so why am I having to "show my cards" when I've received minimal information from the Landlord and I am guessing as to what they are trying to claim for? It's a giant pain in the proverbial and just feels unfair. Answer was "that's how it is" and "go via the courts if you don't like it".

On top of that - once I submitted it noted that I won't be seeing the evidence that the Landlord submits to the adjudicator. Procedurally I can see why this is the case but honestly, the LL gets to see all of my carefully prepared documentation so I'd like to see what they come back with, at least!

As tenant, I didn't get to choose which scheme the landlord used (it was protected late and I never got the prescribed information so I suppose I am lucky that it's anywhere at all...) so I'm stuck with MyDeposits.

I am totally aware that I can submit a claim via the county courts small claims track and I considered this but overall it would probably be the same amount of work...

Do the other deposit schemes work this way and put the onus on the T to show that it should be returned?

Thanks (and apologies for the rant!)

bouicca21

Presumably your landlord has told you why he won't return the deposit?

I was in a dispute about my deposit last year. In uploading my evidence to My Deposits I attempted to cover every possible base. I provided dated photos from when I moved in, and dated photos of when I moved out. I provided copies of correspondence and receipts for essential repairs that I had carried out when the landlord failed to respond to requests to do so himself.

It was pretty clear that he hadn't a leg to stand on. I got my deposit back in full.

Werdnal

If it was protected late and you didn't get the PI, then you have a valid claim for the whole deposit back, plus a possible court claim of 1-3x the deposit value.

Write to the LL, entitled "letter before action" and tell them that as they breached the deposit protection regulations in failing to protect within 30 days of receipt and failure to serve you valid PI, you request the whole deposit value returned with no deductions, and will be taking further legal advice as to a claim for 1-3x penalty for non-protection. Give them 7 working days to reply!

martinsurrey

Werdnal wrote: »

If it was protected late and you didn't get the PI, then you have a valid claim for the whole deposit back, plus a possible court claim of 1-3x the deposit value.

Write to the LL, entitled "letter before action" and tell them that as they breached the deposit protection regulations in failing to protect within 30 days of receipt and failure to serve you valid PI, you request the whole deposit value returned with no deductions, and will be taking further legal advice as to a claim for 1-3x penalty for non-protection. Give them 7 working days to reply!

The only reason the landlord has to return the deposit in full without deductions after a breach of the protection rules is if he wants to evict with a s21 notice (as its invalid if he issues one after failing to protect), and I guess the OP has moved out already as a check out has been done, so that’s a moot point.

The tenant is still liable for the normal costs of repairs and damage even if the landlord protected late and returns the deposit in full, so that just opens the door for a small claims court case, which is a lot more involved than a deposit arbitration.

So that leaves only the court case for the 1 - 3 times deposit claim, this cannot be done in the small claims court and will require a full court application, as the landlord has protected the deposit and is acting in a fair way (fully involving the arbitration service of the scheme) he is unlikely to get stung for the 3X deposit.

In all means go for the 1 – 3 times deposit, and let us know how it goes, you cant lose the case, but I don’t know about costs.

[Deleted User]

Hi,

Just thought I would update on what happened. There was no dual-signed inventory in our case - the inventory arrived about 2 months after the start of our Tenancy (despite chasing!). We opted not to sign and return because checking it in detail would have involved moving all our furniture, clearing out all the cupboards to verify the condition etc, so we made it clear we didn't accept and were not prepared to essentially re-pack everything to check the carpets, walls etc. LL had two weeks from the start of our tenancy before our stuff arrived and we could have double-checked the inventory at any time before then.

However, the adjudicator decided that it should be treated as dual-signed and an accurate representation of the condition when we moved in. Great.

Anyway, we won some parts and lost others. However, to give you an idea of the "fair and balanced approach" - when we moved in there were five lightbulbs missing or not working. We fixed or replaced them all (so overal a better position than when we moved in), except in one case (in the bathroom) where we were cleaning the fitting, so we left the brand new bulb on the sink, to be inserted later.

The LL was awarded £25 for this. Literally moving a new bulb upwards about 45cm into the fitting - when the bulb wasn't working when we moved in. The contractor could have put it in place in less time than it took to prepare the quote. And yes, there's travelling time and costs involved but they were also carrying out extensive works on the property at the same time - not exactly a separate trip and they didn't even need to get the bulb themselves - it was right there!

I won't go into the rest in case LL is reading here but I thought it might be useful to show they the schemes are not always biased in favour of Ts. I'm so exhausted from all of this.