Landlord reneged on our agreement

R997

Herbalus wrote: »

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.

No. The LL doesn't have the money. It's held by the original agent, and cannot be accessed by the LL until I agree in writing. The LL is an unscrupulous man, and he would simply have kept it all if he had it.

bouicca21

You really need to explain what you mean by held in escrow. The money ought to be in a recognised deposit scheme and if it isn't you have a heck of a lot more leverage.

Guest101

R997 wrote: »

No. The LL doesn't have the money. It's held by the original agent, and cannot be accessed by the LL until I agree in writing. The LL is an unscrupulous man, and he would simply have kept it all if he had it.

This is nonsense.

The deposit is either protected in a scheme or it isnt.

mildredalien

R997 wrote: »

No. The LL doesn't have the money. It's held by the original agent, and cannot be accessed by the LL until I agree in writing. The LL is an unscrupulous man, and he would simply have kept it all if he had it.

If it is held by the letting agent then it is NOT protected. Not in the legal sense of the deposit protection scheme anyway. It needs to be registered/held with an official government deposit scheme (Deposit Protection Service, MyDeposits, or Tenancy Deposit Scheme). If it was not protected with one of these three schemes then you are legally entitled to your entire deposit back, regardless of the state of the house, and could pursue the landlord for an additional 1-3 x the amount of the deposit as a penalty.

If it is in such a scheme then you could ask for the entire deposit back, state that the only damage was wear and tear and leave it up the landlord to prove otherwise, and prove that he is claiming back actual costs from you. If you never signed an inventory and none of the conversations you had about the payments are in writing you may have a chance, although if you can prove that you did take responsibility for some 'damage' and this was over and above wear and tear you may be required to pay something.

P.s the fact that the landlord is clearly an unscrupulous idiot, and the legal position you are with regards to the deposit in are two separate things unfortunately.

alexjonsson

The only difference between a 'professional cleaner' and the landlord is that the professional cleaner may well do it quicker with more equipment, but not necessarily to a higher standard. What if the LL happens to be a 'professional cleaner'? They certainly wouldn't be paying anyone else to do it.

It's just a myth. He's more than entitled to do it himself. And if the new tenants are mug enough to move into an unclean and undecorated property then more-fool them. But that's not the concern of you or anyone here.

G_M

mildredalien wrote: »

If it is held by the letting agent then it is NOT protected. Not in the legal sense of the deposit protection scheme anyway. It needs to be registered/held with an official government deposit scheme (Deposit Protection Service, MyDeposits, or Tenancy Deposit Scheme)..

Again - not sufficiently accurate. Some schemes are insurance based and the LL (or his agent) keeps the actual money.

OP - you really need to answer the question clearly:

IS THE DEPOSIT REGISTERED IN AN AUTHORISED SCHEME?

1) YES OR NO?
2) WHICH SCHEME?

If you do not understand the question (or its relevance) read this post (linked for you way back in post 7 above):


* Deposits: payment, protection and return

(the above assumes the property is in Eng/Wales - asked earlier and still not confirmed)

CKhalvashi

alexjonsson wrote: »

The only difference between a 'professional cleaner' and the landlord is that the professional cleaner may well do it quicker with more equipment, but not necessarily to a higher standard. What if the LL happens to be a 'professional cleaner'? They certainly wouldn't be paying anyone else to do it.

It's just a myth. He's more than entitled to do it himself. And if the new tenants are mug enough to move into an unclean and undecorated property then more-fool them. But that's not the concern of you or anyone here.

I cleaned a rental property for someone, and got complained at as whilst the house was more/less very tidy, there was a cobweb behind a radiator (yes, I'm not making it up)

Fought constantly for the T and in the end when offered money or court, the deposit was returned in full.

BobQ

R997 wrote: »

No. The LL doesn't have the money. It's held by the original agent, and cannot be accessed by the LL until I agree in writing. The LL is an unscrupulous man, and he would simply have kept it all if he had it.

You need to appreciate that your statements are ambiguous.

A deposit scheme is regulated in law. A depoit in such a scheme gives you more rights.

Money held by a letting agent is not protected or in escrow unless the letting agent puts it into a recognised deposit scheme.

Money held by the letting agent is just the same as the money being held by the landlord. The letting agent is acting for the landlord not you.

Do you understand this distinction?

Herbalus

BobQ wrote: »

Money held by the letting agent is just the same as the money being held by the landlord. The letting agent is acting for the landlord not you.

Unless it's one of those agents that don't fully appreciate their role and don't act as agents of the LL, but rather for themselves, and have taken it upon themselves to act as judge and jury. They take as much money off the tenants as the LL so perhaps they're acting as an impartial overseer.

Not out of the realms of possibility.

BrassicWoman

R997 wrote: »

I disagree. But thanks.

they were legally accurate. or were you looking for a "poor snookums" response?