Landlord reneged on our agreement

stator

Typical slumlord. Claim the whole deposit back. Claim everything is standard wear and tear and mention how crap/old everything was when you moved in and that any deductions would constitute betterment.

Marvel1

Was the deposit protected? It changes things if not.

R997

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

OP you seem to be missing the point that everyone here is tying to tell you.

No. Totally getting the point. Been very useful.

R997

Herbalus wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is "LL is a horrible man, but I reluctantly agreed to pay for cleaning for the next tenant. The lack of cleaning hasn't happened, ergo LL has taken money that I thought was paying for cleaning i.e. pretty much theft. It's like he's stuck two fingers up at me while taking my money".

Yes. That's exactly it.

I'm going to do a bit more digging, but totally take your point. Very happy to have moved on to a property we own. No more landlords. Do feel sorry for the next tenant.

R997

cjdavies wrote: »

Was the deposit protected? It changes things if not.

Yes. The landlord cannot access the deposit until we both agree. Held in escrow. I've stopped them paying out while I take advice. I'm lucky enough not to need the money right away. I can wait.

jbainbridge

Any 'improvements' you made are immaterial.

Was a signed inventory done when you moved in? If there wasn't the LL will be unable to prove anything. You are doing the right thing disputing the deductions.

G_M

Originally Posted by cjdavies
Was the deposit protected? It changes things if not.

R997 wrote: »

Yes. The landlord cannot access the deposit until we both agree. Held in escrow. I've stopped them paying out while I take advice.

This may answer cjdavies' question (& mine much earlier) but slightly ambiguous. You said originally "This was held by the letting agent, " - is this what you are referring to? The agent holding it in escrow?

Or is it protected in one of the registered deposit schemes? (see my earlier link).

[Deleted User]

I do sympathise.., I have a similiar LL myself. But what I would have done to protect myself is very different to what you have done. I will be cleaning/decorating this place somehow to prevent arguments. I'd never agree to give the LL a sum of money I didn't owe. I have learned from my experience. If you have proof that the house was in a state before you moved in, and in no worse state generally when you left.., u didn't have to agree to pay him any money. If you have before and after photos and they prove what you say.., why did you agree to pay him anything?

You did agree to pay him money to compensate him for the damage/lack of whatever you left. As said, this does not mean he HAD to pay for these things to be done. The money you agreed was because you agreed that you had devalued the property. I get that you feel 'done' by the LL, I would too.., but legally, the agreement you made was not precisely for the purpose you feel it was. But this has been explained to you.

Again, 'escrow' is a strange concept with tenancies ., was the money protected by a scheme? The actions a tenant would normally be able to take have been explained to you.., but you seem to be taking another route.

I realise its difficult to read the views other people have about your actions when they are unfavourable.., but if you don't look at why those views exist, and consider them, you won't learn and it could happen again. There is enough that can go wrong for a tenant with an 'iffy' LL, without the tenant shooting themselves in the foot (or both feet).

I am trying to help.

franklee

deannatrois wrote: »

You did agree to pay him money to compensate him for the damage/lack of whatever you left. As said, this does not mean he HAD to pay for these things to be done. The money you agreed was because you agreed that you had devalued the property. I get that you feel 'done' by the LL, I would too.., but legally, the agreement you made was not precisely for the purpose you feel it was.

You would think so but I'm not sure the deposit scheme adjudicators see it that way. Unfortunately I can't find the case study I had in mind but here's a couple of links from Tessa on the landlord's need to prove loss:

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/04/27/tenancy-deposits-what-tenants-need-to-know/

"6. They have to prove loss

Realistically this means they need to have receipts to prove that the work was actually done or the item has been replaced. If they can’t show that the damage has actually cost them anything, they cannot claim any money from your deposit."

Also here:

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2014/09/17/was-a-drop-in-sale-price-due-to-tenant-damage-something-the-deposit-adjudicator-have-been-told/

In the OP's case if the landlord has re-let at the going rent without doing the work then where is the loss? Set against that is the OP admitting liability and agreeing to pay which is obviously going to undermine the OP's argument.

Herbalus

R997 wrote: »

Yes. The landlord cannot access the deposit until we both agree. Held in escrow. I've stopped them paying out while I take advice. I'm lucky enough not to need the money right away. I can wait.

You'll probably find that the majority here thought the LL already had the money. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and all that.

Your next steps depend on where the money is being held and what happens in the face of a dispute i.e. who decides.