Deposit protection

doug3101

Hi all,

My family moved out of a property on 15th March (rented via a letting agency) as the owner said he had decided to sell up. We did some painting work during our tenancy after we had got verbal permission from the LA.

At the checkout the owner turned up and was furious that some rooms had been painted, it seems obvious that he was never informed that we had done any painting. unfortunately the checkout procedure was not completed due to an unholy row breaking out. Also the LA had another appointment and had to leave.

The next day I thought it would be a decent gesture on my part to offer to put the painted rooms back to their original colour at my own time and expense (made 'without prejudice' with no admission of liability). This was rejected and after 10 days of us moving, I was told that the owner was going to take us to court for repainting and other 'damage' that we had done to the property as he felt our deposit would not cover the expense (our deposit was £1125.00)

I replied by saying we deny damaging his property and we would see him in court to fight his claims. After a few more weeks I received another communication saying that the owner had reconsidered and would only like us to pay for the redecorating and we were given a quote for £855.

At this moment in time I have received £270 from the DPS and the rest is in dispute, I have stated that the rest can only be payed by court order or mutual agreement.

I again reiterated my offer to supply paint and my time to put the rooms back to their original colour, the owner responded a week later by saying he was prepared to accept £500 and he would pay the other £355 and this was his 'final offer'.

I again said I was only prepared to supply paint and my time as I had no guarantee that if I handed over any money (not that I was prepared to) it would be spent paying the painter who supplied the quote to do the work. I put in my last communication that if I had heard nothing by the 10th May 2013 or the owner had not started any proceedings then I would seek advice on how to get my deposit back via a court order.

I received a letter on 10th May saying that my offer of paint was rejected as we breached our contract by painting.|Also the owner would be taking further evidence to court and be asking the magistrate to take into account the shocking way we left his property and how dirty it was. We did pay a cleaning company to do a one off clean after we had moved our stuff out.

I know this is long winded (and thanks for persevering!) But, the owner has huffed and puffed and threatened this, that and the other but not actually done anything. He actually moved his step son in the day after we moved out.

All I want to know is how do I get my money back? It's my opinion that all the owner wants is some cold hard cash and not an amicable resolution to the problem. If the house was left in such a bad state (which it wasn't) why has he not taken steps to take me to court (although he seems more than willing to try and counter claim if I try to get my money back through any legal process)

We have also heard that it is possible that the owner never planned to sell but he just told us that to move us on and get the aforementioned step son in. We also have a letter from the LA that states " Mr ***** has decided to sell the property and will not be renewing your tenancy. He has agreed that if you find alternative accommodation he will break the contract with no financial penalty to you as tenants"

In hindsight it was foolish not to get written permission to paint (it is in our contract) but the LA seemed really nice and we thought it was OK. The LA now seems to be backtracking a bit too!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated
Thanks

19lottie82

Had the property been professionally painted when you moved in? What did your inventory say. (If there wasn’t one, then this could be to your advantage, so please answer)

I’m not 100% sure, but I’m afraid the LL will prob win on this one, and you should accept his offer of accepting £500 from your deposit.

I know you feel hard done by, and understandably so, but you need to understand that your “verbal agreement” with the LA is worthless.

I can also understand why the LL is pretty miffed and I don’t think he is being unreasonable to expect the property to be professionally painted back to the original colour, if that is the way it was presented, when you first moved in. Especially if he intends to sell the property.

If the remainder of your deposit is being held in dispute by the DPS, it will be them, who decides if you get it back or not, unless you agree to the deduction. There is no need for "court".

Moral of the this is ALWAYS get permission for home improvements in WRITING from the LANDLORD, when renting. Verbal permission is useless.

19lottie82

PS Stop communicating with the LL directly. Deal only with the DPS If you wish to reject his claim, then dispute his deduction via their website ASAP

doug3101

Thanks Lottie,

No, the property was not professionally painted and the inventory has defects (scuff marks, lifting wallpaper etc ) noted. I have pointed out that a painter and decorator will bring in 'betterment' issues but the LL seems to dismiss this and just keeps asking for money. As I said before, I am really unwilling to just hand over cash as I truly believe that it will not be spent on a painter and decorator and the LL will just spend about £50 on paint, do it himself and pocket the rest. Also when the LA contacted me (after we had said that we would fight any court action) she told me that the LL cant take me to court as he has no money to do so and could we try and reach an amicable solution. I think its a bit of an annoyance that the LA has taken money off both parties, not done her job properly, and gets to walk away from this unscathed while we argue over money!

19lottie82

OK, then betterment would definitely come in to the equation.

Again, limit your communication to via the DPS only and reject his claim ASAP! .

The only way your LL could take you to court would be if the DPS accepted his claim and there wasn't enough money in your deposit to cover his damages.

LA sounds like an amateur tbh

dgtazzman

If a friendly solution is still on the books, could you maybe agree to paying the 500 pounds, PENDING he produces bills from the painters proving this amount or more is/was paid to them for the work and paint. You could maybe keep the money in dispute until this is done. I'd give him a reasonable amount of time to do this, 2-4 weeks, if not done within that time frame, I'd leave it in the hands of the deposit's scheme (or possibly offer him 50 pounds for paint as a final offer).

It seems to me this is a matter of principle for you, rather than money, so you can just wait it out.

If the walls had scuffs etc. on them when you moved in, I don't see how he possibly could claim the full amount of repainting due to betterment and you have offered to put it all right yourself, which in my eyes is a reasonable offer on your behalf.

Best of luck.

benjus

Not sure about DPS, but if you look at some of the TDS case studies, there have been decisions in the past where the tenant redecorated without authorisation (and the LL wanted to claim for redecorating costs), but because in the adjudicator's view the tenant had improved the overall decorative state of the property, they rejected the LL's claim.

doug3101

Thanks guys for your replies. Benjus, do you have a link re the TDS case studies. dgtazzman it is alot about principle as I feel I have come up with a fair solution but it keeps coming back to me just releasing cash to him. Also I had to borrow a bit of money to pay a deposit on our new place and it needs to go back. The thing I cant get my head round is why the LL is prepared to pay £355 towards the cost if nothing is his fault as long as I release £500. Also if he had that amount of money and feels we really left his property in a bad state why not pay £60 or so to moneyclaim and pursue it that way? Another thing is that I live in a small town and 'receipts' are easy to obtain if you know the right people. Lottie I have 'locked' the deposit and it can only be released by court order or mutual agreement (and I don't think that will happen) the only thing I am worried about is that the adjudicator will just split the difference and leave me out of pocket!

G_M

My view:

* redecorating, drilling holes for shelves, making changes without written consent is always foolhardy - for exactly this reason
* Unless agreed otherwise (as above) the LL is entitled to get the property back as it was - not just in terms of items on inventory, and cleanliness, but colour scheme. I'm sure you have great taste, but some tenants might paint a room black, or purple, so the principal is, don't change the colour without consent
* offering to reinstore the colour scheme is out - an outgoing tenant, even if a competant painter/decorator, is unlikely to devote the time/care required. As a LL I would employ professional
* yes, Betterment is relevant. So take the cost of the professional quote, then adjust for betterment.
* whetehr the LL ultimately re-instates or not is irrelevant. If you destroy my car in an accident that is your fault, you (or your insurer) pay me the value of my car. Whether I choose to buy a replacement or start using public transport is up to me.

benjus

doug3101 wrote: »

Benjus, do you have a link re the TDS case studies.

See the last one in this link: http://www.thedisputeservice.co.uk/resources/files/Case%20studies%20-%20redecoration.pdf

ValHaller

doug3101 wrote: »

I again said I was only prepared to supply paint and my time as I had no guarantee that if I handed over any money (not that I was prepared to) it would be spent paying the painter who supplied the quote to do the work. I put in my last communication that if I had heard nothing by the 10th May 2013 or the owner had not started any proceedings then I would seek advice on how to get my deposit back via a court order.

Let's be very clear about something here before you go marching off to court to fall off your bicycle.

All that matters either to a dispute service or to a court is whether the property is returned to the LL in the same condition (less fair wear and tear) as when he let it out. If it is established that the property is not so returned, then a claim will be upheld based on the cost of rectification. Even if the LL does not have the work done, this does not affect his rights to compensation.