Landlord saying we stole items

Lord_Baltimore

fishpond wrote: »

Assuming the above is correct, the LL hasn't got a leg to stand on.

I would be hopping mad if someone stole my leg .

Mgman1965

Marktheshark wrote: »

Then both go to the dock as it would be conspiracy.
I doubt anyone would be so spiteful to risk prison themselves to get at someone else.
What with the benefactor of conspiracy getting the loaded sentence.

A certain polititions wife/ex-wife did and ended up taking various people down with her, including a judge !!!!!!

bbk87

We have not replied to the landlord last email when he accused my mum of being a thief.

She is unsure if a deposit was paid as this was two years ago, and my mum has memory issues. She can say something and then forget it two minutes later. I wasn't there so cannot confirm whether a deposit was paid or not. Tenancy says it was, landlord is saying it wasn't. A certificate was never received from any of the schemes, I've called them all and they all say nothing is there.

My mum was living in the property with my brother and sister. Her boyfriend didn't live there. They weren't together that long when mum got the place, and didn't want to rush into things. Mum didn't want him living there so soon. Their relationship ended up being on and off anyway.

We're not bothered about the theft now, I know that they can't do anything regarding that. More concerned about the HB part. The tenancy was signed, and then the landlord said to only pay £800 as that is all her mortgage was, the next year she said £850. We only have a text message that says she wanted the full rent as of the new tenancy, but she then issued a s21.

Guest101

bbk87 wrote: »

We have not replied to the landlord last email when he accused my mum of being a thief.

She is unsure if a deposit was paid as this was two years ago, and my mum has memory issues. She can say something and then forget it two minutes later. I wasn't there so cannot confirm whether a deposit was paid or not. Tenancy says it was, landlord is saying it wasn't. A certificate was never received from any of the schemes, I've called them all and they all say nothing is there.

My mum was living in the property with my brother and sister. Her boyfriend didn't live there. They weren't together that long when mum got the place, and didn't want to rush into things. Mum didn't want him living there so soon. Their relationship ended up being on and off anyway.

We're not bothered about the theft now, I know that they can't do anything regarding that. More concerned about the HB part. The tenancy was signed, and then the landlord said to only pay £800 as that is all her mortgage was, the next year she said £850. We only have a text message that says she wanted the full rent as of the new tenancy, but she then issued a s21.

Tenancy says it was paid, I'd say that's evidence enough. Threaten to sue for non protection.

See what they say then.

BitterAndTwisted

You say that an inventory was attached to the tenancy agreement but no actual check-in was carried out in her presence when your mother's tenancy started.

It is not strictly necessary for a check-in to be carried out with the tenant present. What the tenant needs to do is check the inventory themselves. Any items which appear on the inventory but which are not actually present needs to be pointed out to the landlord IN WRITING at the time. So, after having examined the inventory yourself, what items are listed on it which are not physically present now?

As to the alleged underpaid rent: I would take the position that if the tenancy agreement refers to a deposit having been received then it was paid. Regardless of any lack of evidence of it on your mother's part. The deposit was paid. It was not formally protected as is required by law. Consequently your mother would be fully entitled to start proceedings in court and ask the court to award her THREE TIMES the deposit amount as a penalty for non-protection. That sum is likely to be in excess of any alleged underpayment of rent the landlord believes they are entitled to.

I'd be fully prepared to play hard-ball with these a-holes.

bbk87

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

You say that an inventory was attached to the tenancy agreement but no actual check-in was carried out in her presence when your mother's tenancy started.

It is not strictly necessary for a check-in to be carried out with the tenant present. What the tenant needs to do is check the inventory themselves. Any items which appear on the inventory but which are not actually present needs to be pointed out to the landlord IN WRITING at the time. So, after having examined the inventory yourself, what items are listed on it which are not physically present now?

As to the alleged underpaid rent: I would take the position that if the tenancy agreement refers to a deposit having been received then it was paid. Regardless of any lack of evidence of it on your mother's part. The deposit was paid. It was not formally protected as is required by law. Consequently your mother would be fully entitled to start proceedings in court and ask the court to award her THREE TIMES the deposit amount as a penalty for non-protection. That sum is likely to be in excess of any alleged underpayment of rent the landlord believes they are entitled to.

I'd be fully prepared to play hard-ball with these a-holes.

The tenancy refers to an attached inventory list, however an inventory was never carried out and no such list exists.