Landlords Beware - My Experience

lighting_up_the_chalice

Sinhanada wrote: »

Now that would be an interesting course of action fishpond. I don't have any legal background but surely taking them to the small claims court with your evidence may be worth a shout?

The Deposit Protection arbitration schemes are voluntary. They can only be used if both parties agree to it. Otherwise the parties have to go to court. However, in agreeing to use the arbitration scheme the parties agree to be bound by its outcome. Which means they can't then go to court if they don't like the decision.

stator

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The Deposit Protection arbitration schemes are voluntary. They can only be used if both parties agree to it. Otherwise the parties have to go to court. However, in agreeing to use the arbitration scheme the parties agree to be bound by its outcome. Which means they can't then go to court if they don't like the decision.

That may be the case with regards to the deposit, but a tenant can still be held liable for damage to a property if the LL is willing to take the matter to court. Assuming the tenant will have the money to pay an eventual CCJ.

mrsmazza

I feel for you, unfortunately their are tenants out there who trash the place, they don't,t care and know how the system works.

We had it done to us about 8 years ago, they really trashed the place, broken windows, smashed sink and toilet, dog poo on fridge, can sprayed the walls, smashed walls, broken crockery everywhere. We were so horrified we called the police. Police couldn't get hold of them, lucky we keep 100% deposit, and claimed some of it off the building insurance.

Then about 8 months later we had the council ( housing department ) ring up for a reference.

ViolaLass

RAS wrote: »

Op

When the fixed term ended did you ensure that the deposit was secured and issue the prescribed information again?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Wouldn't the tenancy become a rolling one? (i.e. continue but not in a fixed term) Why would the deposit need to be re-secured and the information re-issued? Nothing had changed.

lighting_up_the_chalice

stator wrote: »

That may be the case with regards to the deposit, but a tenant can still be held liable for damage to a property if the LL is willing to take the matter to court. Assuming the tenant will have the money to pay an eventual CCJ.

Not if that damage formed all or part of a claim against the deposit and had been ruled upon via the arbitration process.

lighting_up_the_chalice

ViolaLass wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Wouldn't the tenancy become a rolling one? (i.e. continue but not in a fixed term) Why would the deposit need to be re-secured and the information re-issued? Nothing had changed.

Case law (Superstrike Ltd vs. Marino Rodrigues) has determined that a rolling tenancy (statutory periodic) arrising on the expiry of a fixed term is a new tenancy and, as a result, the deposit protection process must be renewed. In effect, it just means re-serving the proscribed information.

G_M

The tale is a mixed bag:
* a naive landlord
* possibly a poor agent
* a dodgy tenant

However, my reaction is

* the entire episode at the 12 month end of 1st tenancy point is totally irrelevant. If the tenants don't wish to commit to another 12 (or even 6) months, not only do they not need to, but they be mad to. They can, of course, remain on a periodic tenancy. See
Ending/renewing an AST: what happens when a fixed term ends?

* it is unclear if/when the tenants gave notice, or whether their notice was adequate. If not, this could have formed part of the LL's claim on the deposit
* it is unclear if the LL re-served the Presribed Information after 6 months - if not, the LL is lucky the tenants did not sue him!
* I suspect there is more behind the agent's withdrawal than we have heard. I have never heard of an agency willing walking away from an income stream. It may have been the tenant's behaviour that led to this action but more likely it was a dispute with, or response to, the landlord......
* there is no mention of a check in inventory. This may be the real reason why the LL lost at arbitration....... far more likely than the fact that check out inspection was a day after the tenancy ended, which is a common ocurrance
* the suggestion that next time the LL would "break the law and use an escrow account." indicates either an ill-thought-out angry response, or an alarming degree of ignorance (this latter supported by several other earlier statements)
* the LL's plans to move back in himself a) are irrelevant and b) were in any case premature
* the fact that the tenants had moved out a day before the tenancy ended is irrelevant - they have every right to do so (provided they leave it securely locked which they did!). Of course, we still have no information about the notice period, though it appears to have been a mutually agreed tenancy end date.

* Deposits (payment, protection and return)

Whilst it is possible this is just one of those rare instances where a deposit scheme reaches a bizar conclusion at arbitration, in which case the OP has my sympathies, my suspicion is there is a 2nd side to this story.......

ViolaLass

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Case law (Superstrike Ltd vs. Marino Rodrigues) has determined that a rolling tenancy (statutory periodic) arrising on the expiry of a fixed term is a new tenancy and, as a result, the deposit protection process must be renewed. In effect, it just means re-serving the proscribed information.

Thank you, I have learned something.

ShaunParker

ognum wrote: »

This has clearly been a poor experience for you. For every poor experience like this there are many excellent landlord tenant relationships so do not tar the whole system through one poor tenant.

It is easy in hindsight to suggest what you should have done but lasting is a buisness and you should have treated it as that.

Did you ask the agents why they were dropping out? I have sacked agents but have never had a suggestion that an agent could not deal with one of my properties.

When you agent left it was you responsibility to make an appointment and view your property. If you had done this you would have known and documented the damage prior to the tenants leaving.

Did you have an official inventory completed at the start and finish of the tenancy? If not why not?

Many tenants do not sign a second fixed term agreement, this does not make them poor tenants it gives the LL and tenants rights to terminate the tenancy. If you were concerned why did you not serve an S21.

I think you were a little naive, chalk it down to experience and move on!

Not entirely - The S21 would of taken longer than the time they wanted to stay so would be pointless in this instance, the overstay in the end was just over 2 months.

During that time I requested entry but was denied due to a range of reasons from illness to not available.

The agent had not gained entry for a long time and so they probably suspected they would be in the firing line when I regained control.

Inventory was done and paid for at the start, if you read what I said the inventory done after they left was deemed irrelevant by the TDS as they said the tenant was not present and so it is their word against mine as to the condition of the house on re-occupation. The photos were deemed in-admissable as they were taken a few days after the tenant vacated, this date was taken as the day they left and not the day we gained entry.

In the agreement there was to be no pets and no smoking and yet every surface was dripping in nicotine, ceilings, light fittings both the bathrooms. There was a large crack in the bath and they had continued to use it so the kitchen ceiling was brown and bowing by over an inch.

And to confirm with some of the other comments - No you cannot sue independently the TDS arbitration is final and to sue you MUST go to court and overturn the TDS verdict first.

I have a friend who has no trouble with tenants, he has 5 properties and has never used the TDS. So I understand there are good tenants, I myself was one in the other property for the time mine was rented out.

It is a bad experience but landlords should know that if you are unlucky and you get a bad tenant then the TDS can and will work against you if they know the system.

Pixie5740

ShaunParker wrote: »

Not entirely - The S21 would of taken longer than the time they wanted to stay so would be pointless in this instance, the overstay in the end was just over 2 months.

You still don't seem to understand what happens when a fixed term tenancy comes to an end. The tenants did not overstay, they had a valid Statutory Periodic Tenancy by the sounds of things. I take it that the tenants served notice to end the tenancy?

There are 2 other deposit protection schemes you could use should you ever become a landlord again. If you do decide to become a landlord again I would highly recommend you join a landlord association.