Landlord taking deposit dispute to County Court

dancingfairy

Hi. I don't know the answer to your question(s), however I don't believe they have to supply you with any invoices for work done. Reason being is that you are being charged for the deprivation of value of the item(s). If you left the place in a mess they could theoretically charge you for a cleaner, but they could then clean it themselves and pocket the money, or just rent the place as is (And take any hit on a lower rental). They are claiming that you have deprived them of some/all of the lifespan of the carpet but they don't necessarily have to go out and buy a new carpet.
I'm sure one of the experts will be along to help further and maybe they can clarify if my understanding is correct?
df

sandsni

Did the LA provide proof of posting along with the letters they claim you received in April?

MagnumBI

sandsni wrote: »

Did the LA provide proof of posting along with the letters they claim you received in April?

No proof of posting for these or any correspondence I've had with them. It's one of the more minor points of contention I suppose - but it supports my side of things that they've not been forthcoming with the information and also seemingly are being quite unscrupulous by now claiming these letters were posted when I genuinely don't believe they were.

dancingfairy wrote: »

Hi. I don't know the answer to your question(s), however I don't believe they have to supply you with any invoices for work done. Reason being is that you are being charged for the deprivation of value of the item(s). If you left the place in a mess they could theoretically charge you for a cleaner, but they could then clean it themselves and pocket the money, or just rent the place as is (And take any hit on a lower rental). They are claiming that you have deprived them of some/all of the lifespan of the carpet but they don't necessarily have to go out and buy a new carpet.
I'm sure one of the experts will be along to help further and maybe they can clarify if my understanding is correct?
df

Thanks, a few other people have said similair things earlier in the thread. I think their case would be stronger in front of a judge with actial proof of their charges but like you say, there's nothing that compells them to provide this evidence.

franklee

MagnumBI wrote: »

... they do not hold a signed inventory for these items– only an incomplete one without my signature on it. ...

...

- That I was the first tenant to take over the property “4 weeks” following it’s build.

...

I will be finding proof that their “4 weeks after build” claim is utterly incorrect as I viewed the apartment longer than before that and there were other people living in the block another month or two before that at the very least.

I'd be asking neighbours about the flat's history. Also I'd buy the land registry entry for three quid and see when the sale completed. Also did you ever get any post for previous occupants?

Even if you were the first occupant from new that doesn't prove the cream carpet was pristine at the start of your tenancy. How do they show there wasn't some snagging done by the builder who walked in with muddy boots on? There will certainly have been a gas safe engineer as there would have been a gas safety certificate including for any gas fire. How many viewers got shown round and were they all made to take their shoes off or put on plastic overshoes to protect the cream carpet? In fact who showed you round and what precautions were taken to keep the carpet clean during the viewing? So I'd really play up that the condition of the carpet wasn't noted on the moving in inventory which should be their proof and your chance to have agreed the condition of the carpet at the start of your tenancy.

Besides which they need to allow for fair wear and tear so provided you used the carpet in a tenant like manner then you'd just be liable for cleaning if you made it dirty. It's hardly your fault if they chose a cheap carpet that can't be cleaned and if it can be cleaned then why replace? If OTOH you spilt say red wine causing an irremovable stain then I'd suggest reading this page to see how it fits in with the suggested charges in the examples:
http://www.arla.co.uk/information-guides/property-guides/deposit-protection-guide/betterment-and-apportionment.aspx

Unless you really trashed the carpet?

franklee

MagnumBI wrote: »

- That wear and tear/ apportionment does not count as if I had “undertaken basic cleaning” – no refurbishment would be necessary, therefore I should pay in full.

If you read the arla link above you will see that apportionment is used when the item is replaced. Basically they have already had 3.5 years use of the carpet (the length of your tenancy) so aren't entitled to charge you for the full cost of new.

MagnumBI

franklee wrote: »

I'd be asking neighbours about the flat's history. Also I'd buy the land registry entry for three quid and see when the sale completed. Also did you ever get any post for previous occupants?

Even if you were the first occupant from new that doesn't prove the cream carpet was pristine at the start of your tenancy. How do they show there wasn't some snagging done by the builder who walked in with muddy boots on? There will certainly have been a gas safe engineer as there would have been a gas safety certificate including for any gas fire. How many viewers got shown round and were they all made to take their shoes off or put on plastic overshoes to protect the cream carpet? In fact who showed you round and what precautions were taken to keep the carpet clean during the viewing? So I'd really play up that the condition of the carpet wasn't noted on the moving in inventory which should be their proof and your chance to have agreed the condition of the carpet at the start of your tenancy.

Besides which they need to allow for fair wear and tear so provided you used the carpet in a tenant like manner then you'd just be liable for cleaning if you made it dirty. It's hardly your fault if they chose a cheap carpet that can't be cleaned and if it can be cleaned then why replace? If OTOH you spilt say red wine causing an irremovable stain then I'd suggest reading this page to see how it fits in with the suggested charges in the examples:
http://www.arla.co.uk/information-guides/property-guides/deposit-protection-guide/betterment-and-apportionment.aspx

Unless you really trashed the carpet?

Thanks for that. Land Registry says the lease is "130 years from 2006". 3 years before I moved in and the property was completed (I believe they had financial trouble until 2009 the year people started to move in ). I did get post in another name and had seen that name on the electoral roll, however I can't seem to find anywhere online that will provide a dated electoral roll. I presume that isn't publically available.

In fairness the carpet absolutely needed replacing. if I'd have lived there still I'd have gotten it done myself. There were stains that were not coming out and just generally it was mucky being the colour it was. The other carpets in the property did just need cleaning but the one they're replacing genuinely did need replacing.

G_M

MagnumBI wrote: »

Land Registry says the lease is "130 years from 2006". 3 years before I moved in and the property was completed (I believe they had financial trouble until 2009 the year people started to move in ). I did get post in another name and had seen that name on the electoral roll, however I can't seem to find anywhere online that will provide a dated electoral roll. I presume that isn't publically available.

The start date andlength of the lease are irrelevant.You need the date the landlord bought the lease which should be shown on the LR Title.

Did you keep any ofthepost?

What do the neighbours say about occupancy?

Your local library should have electoral register-not sure if historic ones though. Try the council offices.

Council tax is another option though asking who was liable before you might be met with 'data protection'.

MagnumBI

G_M wrote: »

The start date andlength of the lease are irrelevant.You need the date the landlord bought the lease which should be shown on the LR Title.

There are 2 Letting Registers on file, one says Freehold, one says Leasehold.

The Leasehold states

2 (20.04.2012) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s))
under which the land is held:
Date : 20 December 2011
Term : 130 years from 1 April 2006
Parties : (1) XXX1 Limited
(2) XXX2 Limited

(3) XXX3 Limited

The freehold which contaisn info on both my apartment and the rest of the apartments in the building states:

C: Charges Register

This register contains any charges and other matters
that affect the land.

1 (15.06.2007) REGISTERED CHARGE dated 27 March 2007.

and then

100 20.04.2012 8 XXX Apartments(first floor) 20.12.2011 MS592418
130 years from
1.4.2006
NOTE: The land in this lease is not discharged from the charge dated 27

March 2007

As for your other points, sadly I have no mail- but will try the other avenues for more info.

rpc

G_M wrote: »

Council tax is another option though asking who was liable before you might be met with 'data protection'.

And fortunately enough the Data Protection Act exempts information that is necessary "for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings)."

Convincing whoever you speak to at the council of that may not be easy though!

franklee

G_M wrote: »

The start date andlength of the lease are irrelevant.You need the date the landlord bought the lease which should be shown on the LR Title.

Not sure the LL's completion date is the full story even if he was the first buyer. Round here the builders were letting some new builds out when they couldn't sell them. Only after a year or two they finally sell. There was a thread on here from a FTB complaining the appliances etc, had been used having found out their new build has been used as a let.