Help!! Landlord refusing DPS/ARS

pinkshoes

Nickflaks wrote: »

Hi there,

We vacated our of our flat last week and the Landlord has stated that he wants to take £350 of our deposit, and in response will offer us a 'quick settlement' (return of our deposit) for the following deductions...

- A 2cm tear in the corner of a fridge door seal (which itself is over 20 years old).
- A blown kicker board (also over 20 years old).
- A bit of limescale on one of the taps.
- A scuff mark on the bedroom wall where the leather bed rubbed against it.

When I requested a breakdown of the £350 the landlord went ballistic and text me saying if we did not agree, he would claim the entire £1850 deposit via DPS and refuse the use the alternative dispute service - meaning that we could only get our deposit via the courts, a process which he said could take years.

Any idea how we should proceed with this? It seems unfair that he can bully us into handing over £350 for (what is essentially) wear and tear. Im happy to make a small contribution, but £350 seems grossly excessive considering the age of the items.

Is he able to threaten to claim £1850 of the deposit and refuse to use the Alternative Resolution Service if we disagree his claim of £350?

Would appreciate any help/advice.

Thanks

- A 2cm tear in the corner of a fridge door seal (which itself is over 20 years old). - sounds like it was past its best. If the tear was your fault, offer £10, if not, offer nothing.

- A blown kicker board (also over 20 years old). - did you do anything to it?? If so, offer a token gesture to replace. Our kitchen is 30 years old and fine. It depends on quality.

- A bit of limescale on one of the taps. - an hour for someone to clean it off, so perhaps £50?????

- A scuff mark on the bedroom wall where the leather bed rubbed against it. - what were the walls like originally? If they were newly painted, then perhaps £80 for the wall to be repainted to cover the scuff mark ?

I would suggest a counter offer, and if he refuses say you are happy to take it to court.

martindow

Arleen wrote: »

@gdb2222: you cannot claim online for deposit, you have to go through off-line courts https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money

Is this correct? On-line you are limited with the number of words you can use in describing your claim, but why are deposits not able to be claimed using this method?

I thought the claims process was different if you were claiming that the deposit was not put in a scheme and wanted the 1-3 times the deposit compensation. But this isn't the case here.

G_M

One is a claim for money owed.

The other is a claim for a penalty.

Arleen

martindow wrote: »

Is this correct? On-line you are limited with the number of words you can use in describing your claim, but why are deposits not able to be claimed using this method?

I thought the claims process was different if you were claiming that the deposit was not put in a scheme and wanted the 1-3 times the deposit compensation. But this isn't the case here.

On money claims online page (https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim-online) it says:

What you can’t claim for
You can’t use this service to:

make a claim against a government department or agency
get compensation for an accident or injury
get your tenancy deposit back from your landlord

So yup.

Miss_Samantha

I don't think that is correct. Their aim may be to have people use the deposit scheme's ADR instead of immediately suing.

The full MCOL guide states: "Finally claims relating to the Tenancy Deposit Scheme should not be issued via MCOL (more information is provided at https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection)", which tends to support that.

GDB2222

Arleen wrote: »

On money claims online page (https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim-online) it says:



So yup.

It's just as easy to issue proceedings through the local county court using paper forms. The MCOL process is very slightly cheaper - I think the court fees are £10 lower. The MCOL process is slightly more efficient, as the paperwork is stored online - ideal if you are not very good at filing, but hardly essential.